For those women who think objectifying women as sex objects is OK

[Tumbulu]

do you feel that you need a man to notice you to feel good, validated or worthwhile? Is it your lack of confidence or comfort with your own self and power that leads you to believe that without a man noticing you that you are not complete?

If this is not why you support objectifying women, can you tell me why you think objectifying women is a worthwhile enterprise for a liberal to pursue? And why?

Can you tell me how the female objectified and commodified supports equality and fairness in the marketplace and workplace.

[Agschmid]

1. I don't think it is ok. n/t

[Bonobo]

2. The problem is that the phrase "objectifying" doesn't actually mean anything.

I would bet dollars to donuts that you cannot define it without some kind of circular argument, something like "objectifying is err, treating someone like an object."

But in what way does responding naturally to a photo of a beautiful woman "turn" that woman into an "object"?

Aren't you really just saying, in different words, that men shouldn't "desire" women? I think so.

People see people in a myriad of ways, changing from one moment to the next. When you have a fire, you will see a fireman as an object to put out the fire. When the fire is out and he is drinking coffee from a thermos, he magically is seen from a wider perspective as an individual. That is to be expected.

Much ado about nothing wrt the SI cover.

[LuvLoogie]

3. Cake. As in piece of cake.

[mainer]

77. OMG, I've never seen this

It's a scream.

[LuvLoogie]

119. Gotta love Lucy Lawless

[DeadEyeDyck]

108. Hi mom!

[hlthe2b]

4. It is reducing a woman's worth to the size/quality of her breasts and other physical attributes

and how "f__kable" men perceive her to be as a consequence.

Give me a break, Bonobo, that YOU don't know what it means.

How many times have I seen posted in your group with reference to a woman, reducing her entire worth to: "I'd DO her"

It is ugly. It is demeaning. It is wrong.

[Bonobo]

7. I know what you THINK it means, but how do you mean "reduce"?

What makes you think that by being excited by a woman's body part also means that you become incapable of also appreciating that woman or other women as humans?

Let me show you how silly that is.

You see a football player on TV and think "Damn, he sure can break a tackle!"

Does that mean that you are reducing all football players to being worth nothing other than their ability to break a tackle.

Protest all you want, but that is a perfectly reasonable comparison.

The fact is that what you REALLY want to object to is bad behavior. And I agree. Bad behavior such as harassing or whistling at women on the streets is bad. Ogling their bodies up and down is bad. I get it.

But there is no such thing as "objectifying" that has a magical power. What you call objectifying is merely sexual attraction and as long as it does not create bad behavior among individuals, I think it is ridiculous to make up a thing called "objectifying" and then try to explain away bad human behavior with it.

As for the "I'd do her" comments that you say you've seen, I don't know about that and I really don't care. I don't see it as a problem. I know you do. We disagree. I don't use the phrase myself much, but I have heard women as well as men say it. It's an expression of a healthy sexual appetite.

So no, I do NOT think it is ugly, nor do I think it demeans anyone to find attraction in certain body parts. Nor do I think it is wrong. I think sexuality is one facet of the human experience and should be enjoyed in all its passion and weirdness.

[hlthe2b]

12. Your attitude and professed lack of understanding says more about you

than anything I could say in response. Those who view women as worthy ONLY to the extent they are deemed "f__kable" is the issue. You know damned well the difference, but I'm done with you and your feigned ignorance of the issue.

[Bonobo]

17. Fly off the handle that easily all the time or just today? nt

[Marr]

41. Interesting post. /nt

[Scootaloo]

66. Well Bonobo, ignorance requires education, lest it lead to permanant stupidity. Let me help.

What makes you think that by being excited by a woman's body part also means that you become incapable of also appreciating that woman or other women as humans?

It doesn't. But when you only perceive her as that 'part', as say, a bouncing butt filling the screen in a Li'l Wayne video, how can you say you are appreciating her as a human being? You're not. In fact you really can't, since all that's being presented to you are the parts or composite thereof, not a whole person. The woman is reduced from being an entire person, to just being her body, and quite often just specific pieces of her body.

Getting excited by another person's body isn't a problem, it's a component of being a primate. And nobody's saying it IS a problem, despite your continual and frankly saddening desperate lies in an effort to say so. No one is staring aghast at the notion of finding another person attractive. no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise. What people are bothered by is the industrialization of the notion, turning a human person into nothing more valuable than the parts its made of, and then turning those into a salable commodity to sell you a watch or a car or just the fantasy that you will someday fuck that part of that person's body.

Let me show you how silly that is.

You see a football player on TV and think "Damn, he sure can break a tackle!"

Does that mean that you are reducing all football players to being worth nothing other than their ability to break a tackle.

Protest all you want, but that is a perfectly reasonable comparison.

Does breaking a tackle require training and skill? I'm not a big follower of football, but as far as i know... yeah. That's why they practice. That's why they train, and work out. It's a skill. What's more it's a skill that can be measured objectively - you are good at it, that guy's worse, and he's even better.

Now, how much skill and practice does it have to have a "nice ass"? Is having a nice ass a pinnacle of hard work and talent, the way breaking tackles is? And how exactly does one determine the niceness of an ass? Who determines the standard, how do you know whose ass is nice?

There's also this aspect... "Football player" is a profession. "Woman" is a gender. Football players are not born in pads clutching a ball, but half the population is born female.

If a guy who wants to play football doesn't meet the measurable standards needed for that profession, what happens? Well, he finds something else to do, no big deal.

What of a woman who "fails" to meet the completely arbitrary and subjective standards expected of her appearance? No big deal? No, they're torn apart by the society around them. They are "ugly," "unlovable," "dogfaced," "trashy."

But of course the two examples are exactly hte same, aren't they?

The fact is that what you REALLY want to object to is bad behavior. And I agree. Bad behavior such as harassing or whistling at women on the streets is bad. Ogling their bodies up and down is bad. I get it.

Congratulations on having the absolute basics down. Now if only you could get over your need to mansplain to people how stupid they are when they try to inform you further...

But there is no such thing as "objectifying" that has a magical power. What you call objectifying is merely sexual attraction and as long as it does not create bad behavior among individuals, I think it is ridiculous to make up a thing called "objectifying" and then try to explain away bad human behavior with it.

Like so.

Unfortunately professor, sexual objectification is not something "made up." Nor is it the same as sexual attraction. That you equate being attracted to a person with the mentality that said person exists to sexually perform for you is actually a little disturbing - maybe I can take comfort in assuming that you are honestly clueless about what objectification is and means.

No, it doesn't "cause" bad behavior. But it does support and reinforce it. Our advertising space is pretty literally full of uses of the female body as a product to place - you know the adage, "sex sells," well that's where it comes from. It's really hard to reinforce "good" behavior - treating human beings like human beings, rather than sex toys - when the common culture is reinforcing exactly the opposite.

As for the "I'd do her" comments that you say you've seen, I don't know about that and I really don't care. I don't see it as a problem. I know you do. We disagree. I don't use the phrase myself much, but I have heard women as well as men say it. It's an expression of a healthy sexual appetite.

The problem here is the notion of doing to. As if that's what that person is there for, expressly for you to "do" them.

So no, I do NOT think it is ugly, nor do I think it demeans anyone to find attraction in certain body parts. Nor do I think it is wrong. I think sexuality is one facet of the human experience and should be enjoyed in all its passion and weirdness.

And again you strive to entirely mischaracterize the argument being presented as opposition to sexual attraction, or sexuality as a whole. Funny how that keeps happening no matter how often it is explained otherwise to you. It's almost as if you steadfastly refuse to accept a perfectly realistic answer, in your endless quest to present those who you "disagree" with as damaged psychopaths out to destroy humanity from the base up.

[Major Nikon]

71. I find your education lacking, so let me fill in the blanks

First, so that you don't accuse me of not understanding what you are saying, let me summarize your position.

What people are bothered by is the industrialization of the notion, turning a human person into nothing more valuable than the parts its made of, and then turning those into a salable commodity to sell you a watch or a car or just the fantasy that you will someday fuck that part of that person's body.

You object to women's bodies, or perhaps more precisely their sexuality being used as a commodity because you feel this dehumanizes them. I get that part. However, this is not an argument, it's just an idea. In order for it to be an argument against what you are describing, you must explain why it's ethically wrong, and as yet you haven't connected those dots. Just because this thing you call objectification makes you feel bad, doesn't mean it's ethically wrong. People are the sum of their sexuality and their intellectuality. Both of those things are routinely parsed out and commodified. I take it you don't object to a person's intellect being parsed out and commodified, so what makes the other any different? If you can't explain this, then you don't have much of an argument.

So where does the ethical argument against objectification come from? As far as feminist theory goes, the argument derived from and was promoted by Dworkin and Mackinnon. However, they were not the origin of the idea. The idea of objectification as ethically wrong comes from Immanuel Kant who believed all sex outside of marriage was objectifying, or in other words he tries to make an ethical argument out of what is essentially a moral one and if you ever bother to read Kant, you'll find out just how warped Kant's ideas are.

Dworkin and Mackinnon took Kant's ideas and tried to repackage them as feminist theory against objectification. Central to their argument was demonstrating the social harm that comes from objectification. If they couldn't demonstrate social harm, then they had nothing more than a moral argument against it rather than an ethical one and Mackinnon knew the moral argument against objectification would always ultimately fail.

Mackinnon lays out her ethical argument here:
http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Catharine-MacKinnon-not-a-moral-issue-Copie.pdf

Notice that central to her ethical argument was that porn (the epitome of sexual objectification) causes violence against women. This was never anything better than a hypothesis. As it turns out this hypothesis was demonstrably wrong and arguably 180 out from reality.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

307. This is absolutely HILARIOUS coming from you, Scootaloo

Given that you stalwartly laud the Taliban in all its forms, as many posts you've made in the past clearly show.

You even call pointing out Taliban's legalizing of domestic violence "racist".

I guess consistency isn't exactly your strong suit. Just hypocritical sanctimony.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Scootaloo]

309. Actually, my right-wing friend...

I called you a racist because you said that the Pashtun don't do anything but beat their wives and hide in caves.

Here's hoping that alternate reality of yours works out for ya

[ConservativeDemocrat]

312. Ah, you're lying as usual, Scootaloo

But I'll let others follow the link and decide if I said in response to your lauding of the Taliban, that Pashtun "don't do anything but beat their wives and hide in caves".

My reality may be "alternate" to the reality of screaming hate-filled hypocritically sanctimonious wingnuts, but it's very real to the vast majority of the United States.

-C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Lucinda]

116. I agree with you

Finding someone attractive isn't the problem, the bad behavior is...

[phleshdef]

172. Only in your mind, does it reduce a woman's worth.

Thats like saying that a musicians worth as a person is reduced by how well they can play an instrument or sing a song. Or its like saying that an athletes worth as a person is reduced to how well they play their sport. This kinda stuff is classified as entertainment. And no one who has put any real thought into the subject would think that said entertainers are, as a person, reduced to the entertainment they are providing.

[hlthe2b]

198. Bull shit.. Just because YOU have not experienced the repercussions of this kind of attitude

does not mean it doesn't exist.

But thanks for "mansplaining" to me (regardless of your gender)

[phleshdef]

204. I'm not man splaining anything

I'm human splaining

[hlthe2b]

209. No, you are being insulting.

welcome to ignore.

[phleshdef]

211. stop getting all butthurt because of blaring holes in your logic

[hlthe2b]

214. Iwill not have someone who uses ugly homophobic language try to tell me how to perceive

anything. You ought to be ashamed and not just because of your condescension and patronizing "mansplaining" of issues you know nothing about.. Our LGBT community will certainly not appreciate your use of that slur, which for posterity read:

"stop getting all butthurt because of blaring holes in your logic"

.

[phleshdef]

219. Butthurt is not a homophobic term, not even in the slightest

Butt hurt comes from the phenomena that occurs when a child falls on their ass and starts crying about how their butt hurts.

If anything is homophobic, its that you automatically associated gay people with the phrase in your mind... so its your thinking that needs an adjustment here, not mine. It also means that you must assume that all gay people have anal sex and that straight people never go anywhere near each other rectums.

[hlthe2b]

224. Skinner addressed this in ATA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=1185

I find your attitude towards this as further evidence you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself--have no respect for women or others different from you. I will not waste further time with you, but will thank you for self-revealing for others as you have.

[phleshdef]

225. Yea, did you read what he said? He AGREES with me.

There is not, nor has there ever been any relation to the phrase "butt hurt" and homophobia. It has not been nor is it being employed as a slur against gay people.

[hlthe2b]

227. He indicated he had learned something and would no longer use.

Now find someone else to insult and patronize.

[phleshdef]

229. No, he indicated that he changed his post in order because someone took it the wrong way.

He was just being nice.

I, on the other hand, have no tolerance for people propping up red herrings and pretending my words mean something that they don't mean. You don't get to decide what "butt hurt" means, its an established phrase that already has a meaning and it has nothing to do with gay folks at all. So I will continue to unapologetically use the phrase whenever I feel like it.

Some of you folks around here are so obsessed with self censorship, by the time you are done, you will run out of words you CAN say and will have to resort to communicating with tongue clicks and finger snaps.

[RBStevens]

238. Oh my.

"resort to communicating with tongue clicks and finger snaps."

You do know that there are people in the world who DO communicate utilizing tongue clicks? And finger snaps? God forbid that we end up like that.

[phleshdef]

247. of course I know that

If history is to be believed... That was probably some our first primitive forms of communication.

[RBStevens]

249. What I'm saying is that some people

still use the methods of communication and it has nothing to do with *censorship*.

Do you see where I am going with this?

[phleshdef]

285. No I don't. It was a joke.

[RBStevens]

291. Oh so "it was a joke"?

Everything is a damn "joke" when it comes to belittling others, right?

[phleshdef]

315. Yea, and everything is "belittling" when you're such a god damn political emo.

[RBStevens]

316. Call me square, but I never did understand what "emo" means.

Maybe if I did I'd understand whether or not you are belittling me.

[hlthe2b]

242. Ahhh, Spring!

Your opinions and a shovel will somewhere make for a wonderful (if stinky) compost.

But, you have a nice day, ok?

[Aerows]

207. Change this to race, such as a President

and see how swiftly you change direction, and the reasons why. I look forward to it.

[Skittles]

233. OMG

a guy at work saw Sophia Loren on TV and commented, "She is finally off my "WOULD HIT" list." I told him, "You were NEVER on *HER* "list"" - OMG the ARROGANCE of that shit

[hlthe2b]

235. Note the earlier conversation...

Yes, we get "all kinds" here as apparently you do at your workplace.

BIG

[TampaAnimusVortex]

272. What about gay men objectifying men? Or Lesbians Objectifying Women?

Or strait women objectifying those guys in male strip bars? Please...

Neuroscience has shown that involuntary brain reproductive selection circuits continually monitor the environment looking for mates with optimal fitness potential. You can no more change that then you could change a person's sexual preference. You might as well be in the same camp as those wacky conservatives trying to "cure" someone's "gayness"...

People are always going size up people in their surroundings for reproductive potential and physical appearance is going to be the predominant cue, at least until they actually start talking... Sorry, that's just the reality of the situation. People will get objectified... men and women.

[hlthe2b]

277. If either have or are allowed to become a systematic method of discrimination

[TampaAnimusVortex]

295. Of course... everyone has...

As my post stated... evolutionary fitness selection requires looking at individuals features and discriminating as it always has.

and also as I stated... if your expecting to unwire a billion years of evolution, your in the same camp as those trying to "un-gay" people.

[hlthe2b]

296. You seem to (like many others) be confusing gender attraction in relationships with professional

and societal settings. Using physical attributes as a means to find a mate is one thing. Using it to judge the worthiness of another individual in the workplace or as a human being, is quite another. That some seem content to defend such behavior--referring to women as mere "things worthy or unworthy of sexual engagement--using the vernacular, I'd DO her" is contemptible. Yet some here feel that is appropriate.

Sorry, but I am not interested in continuing a discussion with one defending that behavior.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

314. Your straw man is pretty obvious...

You posit that I am defending those who might make the statement "I'd do her" without providing context.

Also, you don't seem to ask the question about lesbians who might say "I'd do her" or gay men who say "I'd do him".

Let's see if we can provide some context to tease out the appropriate use of the phrase though...

1. Your in a scientific study of human sexuality with many other men and women who are presented random pictures of people and asked to identify if you would have sex with them based simply on the appearance... in which case, "I'd do him/her" is a valid, if not poorly phrased response.

2. Your invited over to your fiance's parents house for the first time for dinner, where after introductions.. you sit down to eat. During dinner, your finance's sibling comes home and walks in - and you find them attractive. If you were to blurt across the table "I'd do him/her"... this would be a poor choice of timing indeed.

It's all about context - and your transparent attempt to paint me as defending crude behavior is a straw man, when the reality of it is that you used too broad of a brush and tried to paint every instance of someone noticing someone elses attractive features as "Objectivication". Next time let's try to reel in that frothing reflexive attacking before thinking.

[kcr]

8. It isn't saying men shouldn't desire women

It's saying that women shouldn't be reduced to nothing but objects to be desired, as if that's there only purpose for existence. That is objectification. You can't see the difference? Your example with the fireman. See, the thing is, with objectification, there is no jumping out of the pictures and seeing the women do anything other than being objects of desire. That isn't wanted or expected. They aren't doing anything. The fireman is doing a job. Not a comparison at all.

But even with all that being said. Most of the objection over the whole SI cover, which you dismiss as much ado about nothing? Most of it wasn't even over the whole issue of objectification. Mostly it was over the fact it was posted in GD and posted to troll. That was my problem.

[Bonobo]

10. I don't think it belonged in GD either for what it's worth. nt

[eShirl]

68. Thank you.

[Tumbulu]

15. Just answer my question Bonobo, are you one of these women

that want men to look at you? Is this defense of objectifying some sort of way of living out some sort of a fantasy? Is the idea of a man looking at you something you want? And if so, why?

I am passing no judgement, I just for life of me do not understand this.

But I have on occasion met women who want men to notice them- actually enjoy it, dress for this, etc. I am trying to figure this out.

[Bonobo]

19. I'll try to answer, Tumbulu.

I am a man so there answer to most of the questions is no.

I think there are MANY women that want men to notice them and many men that want women to notice them.

I do not think that noticing them is where things end. People try to find eyeglasses that look nice and will make them look more this or that. Same thing for bags, hats, jeans, shoes and hairstyles.

But noticing someone's hair does not REDUCE the person to nothing more than hair. Does it?

[Tumbulu]

25. OK, here is the thing,

I am a woman and I have met less than 5 women in my life that choose clothing, glasses, bags, etc to be noticed by men. Most buy these things to feel good about themselves. To feel confident, or because they like the texture of the thing, or how it was made, or if it looks pretty or graceful when they move.

But, those 5 women, maybe they are the ones who like the idea of female objectification.

I honestly cannot figure it out, which is why I am asking this.

Plus I met a man who thought that women dressed to attract men. I was simply stunned. He acted as though this was common knowledge. Clearly you think this as well. This has not been my experience, and I am nearly 60 and have lived on three continents and with different cultures.

[Bonobo]

30. I don't think the two things are as separate as you make them out to be.

I think (just my opinion) that when people say they dress or accessorize to make themselves "feel better or more confident" about themselves, they are doing essentially the same thing.

We all build our self-images by reflecting off how we think others see us. Right? That is how we come to have an idea of ourselves, using others as a mirror.

So if you find a way of dressing, walking or acting that makes you more confident, I believe it means that you THINK you have come upon a way of dip laying yourself to the world so that you have gotten closer to attaining your desired image. Some people want to use their image to project a message that is solely from themselves, yes, that is true. But a far larger percentage of people want to be VIEWED in a certain way (attractive, scary, tough, sensitive or other)

So do I think that women only dress to appear attractive? No, I do not.

I will restate: Men AND Women dress, act, behave, speak, adorn, walk, talk, etc in order to project a certain image that will have a certain effect on how others view them.

[Tumbulu]

37. I see a very big difference between dressing to feel good

about oneself, vs dressing to attract. And in my life I have met very few women who dress to attract and most who dress to feel good about themselves or comfortable, or both. Perhaps men dress more to attract? Of the people you know what percentage of them dress to attract (male and female)? I have never considered asking the men I know if they dress to attract, I just thought all this was some sort of an urban myth. Since less than 1% of the women that I have known in my life actually dress to be attractive to men, I had concluded that the same was true for men. Just an urban myth cooked up by marketing people.

Which is what my original question is about.

[Bonobo]

40. With all due respect, I think you didn't read my response carefully enough.

First of all, I didn't say "attract" only. It is only one of the possible things that people want. And oh yes, EVERYONE dresses for some purpose whether they admit it or not.

[Tumbulu]

47. Well, I am sorry to have not understood you

I suppose I should ask my question differently.

In my life's experience the majority of the women that I know specifically dress to be comfortable, be able to do their work and wear things that they think are interesting or lovely in some way. BUT they do NOT want to be bothered by men looking at them or even noticing them. They want to be left alone by men (other than the one they are involved with). If there is any impressing, it is to impress other women. Except for these five that I mentioned above. Mostly the women that I have known in my life want to avoid encouraging strange men looking at them. But this is just me and my experience.

Hence my mysification with the cover of that magazine. Clearly there are some women who like this sort of thing. I just do not know many of them.

How about men, and, are you urban or rural?

[Bonobo]

51. But the SI cover is not normal life. It is a commercial enterprise to sell magazines and soap.

I don't see that there is a connection between how the people you know act and how the models paid to sell magazines act.

The woman that you know that don't dress to attract men... I totally get that. Most people don't dress to attract other people except on special occasions. But in my experience in life, I find that almost everyone -AT SOME POINT- WILL dress in a way to be attractive or noticed at some party, event, beach trip or otherwise. I really don't believe that anything but a TINY minority would never engage in dressing to look attractive.

I am rural and people only dress up when they go to the city.

Once people are older and married, they do not spend too much time trying to look attractive to the other sex but they are STILL trying to live up to a standard that has been impressed upon them by social forces.

So let me ask you this, and I would like an answer.

IF your friends are dressing up to impress other woman by fulfilling a certain look or a certain expectations, are they being victimized by 'objectification' by those other women?

[Tumbulu]

53. I do not see dressing up to impress other women

as objectification since the women are not treating them as objects and that is not the goal.

Impressing your coworkers or sisters or female bosses or students with your taste in textiles, or flare with color is not about attracting attention, but more about communicating that one is sensitive to nuance, texture, form and visual beauty. It is more about expressing intelligence and or depth. It is a non verbal communication that is not about impressing to be attractive in a sexual way, but as a way to express individuality and who one is.

I do not think that I am doing a good job at all of articulating what I have observed. And who knows if my observations are valid- they are what I think and what I think other women have expressed.

I am rural and people dress up in their clean clothes when they go to the city, but not sexual clothes or sexy clothes. As I said, I do not think many people actually do this. But perhaps it is regional. I am out west. Maybe we are a more pragmatic group.

[JustAnotherGen]

256. Exactly

Impressing your coworkers or sisters or female bosses or students with your taste in textiles, or flare with color is not about attracting attention, but more about communicating that one is sensitive to nuance, texture, form and visual beauty. It is more about expressing intelligence and or depth. It is a non verbal communication that is not about impressing to be attractive in a sexual way, but as a way to express individuality and who one is.

In the circles of women I run in - we love fashion. If we go out to dinner with our husbands - I'm normally the only one there who had to go through her personal Tim Gunn before we went out. Ive totally disregarded him since he came home with a pair of skinny jeans in Decrmber and until he gives them to good will - he doesn't get an opinion.

But I'm not going for his approval - my girlfriends appreciate my taste.

[Tumbulu]

284. Thank you!

Enjoy!

[Beartracks]

60. Perhaps most people don't dress to ATTRACT, but rather...

... they dress so as not to REPEL.

Just thinking out loud.

I don't to go to work with shirts that I don't think fit; I don't go out to dinner with ratty jeans; I don't even go outside to get the morning paper if my hair is still sticking every direction. And I will NOT wear pajama pants to go shopping. My main objective with my public appearance is simply to not look like a slob or a dork.

==============================

[Bonobo]

62. Because "objectifying" is NOT just about attraction.

If you dressed in ratty jeans, people would define you by your jeans, how you look.

Is that not also "objectifying" (here I am forced to use a term I find rather meaningless)?

I just don't see the difference. In this case you would be reduced as a person to a pair of jeans that signifies WHAT you are, not WHO you are.

How the hell is this any different than the sexual thing other than the fact that some here try to make as large an issue as how humans interact and view each other as reduced to the one element they can claim women as being sole victims?

[Tumbulu]

63. I think you are right about that!

I do think that primarily, most of the time, we just want to look decent, not terrible and not sticking out.

[yewberry]

67. Hold the phone. Fundamental and massive failure here.

Objectification isn't about seeing someone as an object. At all.

The term refers to a subject-object relationship. The subject retains agency, the object is not afforded agency. Objectification is related to dehumanization in that it removes the burden of seeing the "other" as an individual, as a fully realized person with agency, from the subjective "self." It's like a psychological-cultural version of synecdoche, reducing a larger whole to a functional part, while erasing humanity.

People see people in a myriad of ways, changing from one moment to the next. When you have a fire, you will see a fireman as an object to put out the fire. When the fire is out and he is drinking coffee from a thermos, he magically is seen from a wider perspective as an individual. That is to be expected.

No. This analogy is not apt-- the firefighter never loses agency in this scenario. The firefighter is the agent; the fire is the object. The firefighter performs a function, but never loses capacity for free will or self-determination. Objectification is that: a person (the subject, the doer) seeing another (the object, the done-to) only in relation to the agency/expectations of the subject. The object is the thing that the subject acts upon.

Can you understand why it is difficult to accept being that thing?

[TM99]

109. No.

You are conflating object-relations as a psychological theory of childhood development with the Feminist theory of objectification and are coming up logically short.

If I have successfully navigated those early stages of development with little trauma, I am capable as a human being of seeing other human beings as both objects in relationship with me and subjects in relationship with me as an objects of their self-awareness. In other words, a true I-thou relationship. We are always both subject and object in any relationship be it interpersonal or professional. So yes, the fireman analogy still stands. For me, as a subject, suffering from a fire, the fireman is both an object, the one who I expect to put out the fire, and another subject, a human being who has chosen out of compassion to risk his or her life to protect me and my belongings from fire.

An eye-level adult relationship recognizes that each person has agency and also has their own teleology. We may choose to play certain roles with each other from boss and employee to husband and husband. But if at any time, we remove the 'subject' and only use language that denotes the 'object' then we have failed to have healthy and mature adult relationships, sexual or otherwise.

To say that a woman such as Kate Upton has no agency is the height of logical hypocrisy as you are the one seeing her solely as the object. She has agency. She has chosen to do the work that she wants to do even if you and I both agree that we would not want to do it or that it is an appeal to sexual titillation. To say she does this only because of some perverted warping of Stockholm Syndrome or solely to appeal to men equally deprives of her agency and frankly is arrogant mind-reading.

My rejection of Feminist philosophy stems in a major way from the choice of language which psychologically sends a double message. Equality is what all are seeking in truth especially here on a 'progressive' political forum. However, to say that any woman who disagrees with Feminist Objectification theory is not a 'feminist' is to reduce a single woman (the subject) to a monolithic 'those women' (an object.) To say that any man who finds a woman sexually appealing is therefore a part of a 'rape culture' and is incapable of not knowing that he is 'objectifying' a woman by appreciating her looks is to objectify in and of itself. You have reduced a man or several men to mere objects who lack agency.

Worst of all, the very vocal proponents of this flawed theory end up playing out an adult/child stage of object relations theory instead. They project their own fears, rages, and loss of agency on to others and then pretend that they can protect, shame, scold, etc. other adults as if they were children lacking agency. Further proof of this is the immediate and very predictable response when someone, really anyone, disagrees and logically argues why with them. They immediately flip into a shamed and wounded child role and invariably state that no one has the right to tell them to sit down and STFU.

A true loss of agency is a form of slavery. It is a raping of the mind and/or body by another. That is true Narcissistic objectification. This person or these people are my objects to do so as I see fit. A perverted stunting of that childhood development such that the worst of these are locked into the perpetual 'parent' role assuming that all others are 'children' whom they can either do so as they please or are protecting them from themselves. In this regards, as was previously pointed out in another reply, the use of Kant's moralistic objectification philosophy by Feminist theorists is sadly little different than a fundamentalist Christian protecting adults from the horrors of human sexuality and sin.

Humanity has been doing this since time immemorial and will continue to do so as long as humans walk on this planet. Good men and women will fight against this generation after generation sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing. But we do not do so by using language that locks us and others into perpetual adult and child roles where as adults that is true objectification. We must instead approach all relationships from an eye to eye level where we recognize both the subject and object nature inherent in every relationship. We must also truly allow for agency only fighting against if that agency does in fact harm and impinge upon the agency of others. And finally, we must allow other adults with agency to fulfill their desires as they so choose again as long as they do no harm and do not impinge upon the agency of others. The give and take of this with large populations is the very nature of politics and human government.

Real rape is vastly different than two consenting adults having violent simulated 'rape' sex, filming it, and sharing it with others with similar tastes. Real objectification is keeping a young abused adolescent boy or girl strung out on heroin and prostituted to sociopathic individuals not an adult woman posing for the swimsuit issue of Sport Illustrated and having both men and women admire the beauty of her body and the surroundings. To conflate the two is just immature thinking and stunted psychological development.

[yewberry]

155. I'm not conflating anything.

I'm correcting the clearly pervasive belief that objectification is the same as seeing someone as a thing.

Feminist theory on objectification involves denial of autonomy, instrumentality, inertness, fungibility, ownership, violability, and denial of subjectivity, along with reduction and silencing. It's not like looking at someone and seeing a doll or a lamp, and this is what people are reducing it to.

I'm not interested in your personal rejection or characterization of objectification theory. We're hardly going to agree if you assert that objectification is only "real" if it involves perpetration of criminal and/or psychopathic acts.

[TM99]

156. Indeed yes you are.

And yes, you are correct. We will not agree as objectification theory has not been proven to be valid. There numerous criticisms of it from a variety of fields including sociology, psychology, and evolutionary biology.

Furthermore, I find it unnecessary as a theory. All of the things it describes, have already been covered by the field of psychology. Hence your rather poor understanding of such things as object relations theory.

[yewberry]

157. Sorry, that's some seriously funny stuff.

You wear insulting and pedantic like a badge of honor. Any other divinations of my character or intellect you'd like to make from your lofty perch, Carnac?

[TM99]

306. We are eye level adults.

That does not mean that I must agree with you especially if your reasoning and knowledge is incorrect. To correct that does not make me the shaming parent so it is really not necessary to flip into the wounded child and make smart ass replies as you just did like a petulant teenager.

Correcting basic flaws in understanding the differences between object relations theory from the psychodynamic traditions and the Feminist theory of objectification based on Kant's moral theory of objectification is neither insulting nor is it pedantic.

If you are basing your rhetoric on that flawed comparison, why would you not suppose that someone who does understand the differences would not correct you. This is how argumentation and debate are done.

You are free to double down which you have chosen to do. Or you could try a different line of reasoning to debate the topic. Or you could even recognize that there may be a gap in your knowledge. Go back and read or re-read Rank, Ferenczi, Winicott, Klein, Dworkin, McKinnon, Kant, and philosophers post Kant who have discussed his moral theory.

[yewberry]

308. Actually, I'm not sure we are.

You seem to have decided that your superior knowledge should silence me. What a coincidence, given that I am a woman who does not agree with your complete rejection of objectionification theory.

You've gone to great lengths to explain away points I never made. I simply was trying to clarify that objectification is not the act of seeing another person as a "thing." I have no interest in convincing you of anything.

I'm not asking you to agree with me and I'm certainly not asking you to take a role of a shaming adult. You were insulting, and I acknowledged that. Simple. Your insult was clear, in that you stated that my thinking is immature and that my psychological development is stunted. Correcting flaws is fine, but your opinion is no more valid than mine, TM99, even if you believe that is the case. Re-read what you wrote, and you will see that you have been pedantic and insulting to me.

I have not thus far claimed to be any kind of authority on this subject (unlike you). I have simply tried to clarify that objectification is not about seeing another person as a "thing."

I have NOT chosen to double down in any way, and you might benefit from acknowledging that. Please don't lie; it just makes you look bad.

[TM99]

310. Correcting in a debate is not equivalent to silencing,

and no where did I suggest, imply, or bluntly state that you should be so silenced.

Please re-read my last paragraph in that original post. Taken the full logical conclusion, the mistaken overlapping of Feminist Objectification theory and Object Relations Theory is immature thinking and will lead to psychological stunting.

I am truly sorry if you read that paragraph believing that I was calling you immature or stunted. I may stand by my assessment that you are reacting very emotionally to me very quickly which belies some unfinished business (one of school of thought I have studied calls it 'burning the wood'), however, I was providing knowledge that I may be an 'authority on' but am not being authoritarian about (and despite post modern thinking there really is a big difference) so that you and others could see the end results of such flaws in logic and how it really doesn't help any of us psychologically to have healthier and more equal relationships.

[Demo_Chris]

255. Exceptional post. nt

[pnwmom]

72. The real issue is that the SI cover doesn't belong on a political website

frequented by both men and women.

Women are here to discuss political issues, including their place in society; and they don't need to have it flung in their faces that many men -- including so-called progressive men -- view them, either primarily or secondarily, as "an object to put out the fire" within.

This isn't to say that men shouldn't desire women and that women shouldn't desire men. But on a political website, displays of this desire detract from a discussion between equals.

[DontTreadOnMe]

201. Yes it does... if only for the topic to discuss gender wars

DU can't seem to stop posting... it's like the Monty Python skit "I am here for an argument".

"Women are here to discuss..." oh, that settles it. I am glad we have all agreed on a small group of people to decide. Sounds like Radical Fundamentalism to me.

When you consider an internet thread to be "flung in their faces"... then maybe you need a break from the internet.

[RBStevens]

212. Oh man. Radical Fundamentalism?

That women wish to discuss sexual objectification on a political site?

Feminism IS politics. Sexual objectification of women is sexism. Sexism is a feminist issue.

[DontTreadOnMe]

221. Discussion is fine... trying to ban images is "radical"

So is burning books. or magazines.

What part of the word "radical" are you missing?

[RBStevens]

226. Okay so now discussing the issue of sexual objectification

of women is fine. Great.

But I'm pretty sure no one here was talking about banning and burning images, books and magazines.

[pnwmom]

250. Where did I say I was trying to ban them? I was trying to encourage people to think.

And to be considerate. And to remember that not everyone on this board is a guy who appreciates T & A photos.

Hoping that people could exercise their higher brain functions before posting isn't being radical, though it might be unrealistic in the case of certain people.

[pnwmom]

248. You think it's fine for people to post objectifying T & A photos

for the purpose of goading women into responding? Then you're part of the problem.

[JustAnotherGen]

245. ^this^ perfect!

Let me add - in the course of these discussions I read - I know I read - something along the lines that women should appreciate it for the fashion aspect.

*sigh*

Someone *cough seabeyond cough* has very lovingly pointed out that I'm such a "girl"! And it's true!

And as a "girl" there are some discussions I'm only having with women at fashion blogs. At no time eveeeer have I come to DU to have that discussion. Oh wait - I did a spinoff here in the Women's group about stilettos because of heated pushback from the Anti Tieks crowd. I swear Choo pays people to post at blogs about his craptastic product but I digress.

I respect that we have both crunchy granola men AND women at DU that are anti spending money on artificial things like clothing handbags perfume etc etc. Me? I'm not that way.

I'm also in a higher tier financial demographic than I get the impression many are at DU.

So I respect THAT too! I hold back! Psst - I own 8 pairs of Tieks.

But I wish crunchy granola men that are all anti establishment would just own up to the fact that the posting was a T and A sucker punch - nothing more and nothing less.

I also remember a few men jumping down the throats of women during the handbag wars. I think I can find a thread referencing that loop of threads in the AA group. So when we want to talk about $500 handbags that's bad - but when they want to give swimsuit fashion advice - its okay. That's not frivolous and fun? Hmmm. . .

So here's the thing - I will go to the luxe blog for fashion advice gentleman. I don't need your assistance. And come this August - I'm posting the cover of THE Book. Know what that is? An orgy of high priced luxury goods that women in the top 5% buy called the September Issue of Vogue. And I'm posting it in GD.

If frivolous is AOK in GD - then its all or nothing. BTW - my favorite "brand blog" has a disco going on about the swimsuits in this years issue and evidently - they suck. Everyone is going with the tried and true - Soraya. The little pups living on dreams and spaghettios are going on about what's in Venus - not SI. So even the young women that are reflected in SI aren't buying those suits.


Whew - you opened the door pnw. Hallelujah! I had to get that off my chest. I seriously do not come to DU to discuss bathing suits. The very idea is cray cray! And if one IS a woman coming to DU looking for fashion advice from men who every once in awhile blurt out " I haven't bought a pair of jeans in ten years !!!!" please don't pay attention to them. Please just don't do it. Friends don't let friends make bad fashion choices.

[Major Nikon]

82. Actually it has been defined, but I don't think those who promote the idea would like who defined it

The idea comes from Immanuel Kant who believed that all sexual intercourse outside of marriage was degrading.

Sexual ethics

Kant viewed humans as being subject to the animalistic desires of self-preservation, species-preservation, and the preservation of enjoyment. He argued that humans have a duty to avoid maxims that harm or degrade themselves, including suicide, sexual degradation, and drunkenness.[74] This led Kant to regard sexual intercourse as degrading because it reduces humans to an object of pleasure. He admitted sex only within marriage, which he regarded as "a merely animal union". He believed that masturbation is worse than suicide, reducing a person's status to below that of an animal; he argued that rape should be punished with castration and that bestiality requires expulsion from society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics#Sexual_ethics

[gollygee]

87. I don't think you know the definition

Women are shown as objects all or almost all of the time in the media. They aren't very often shown as subjects. Men are generally shown as subjects, people who are doing something, have agency, and are autonomous, rather than being done to (or being done, as in "I'd do her.&quot

Feminist Perspectives on Objectification
First published Wed Mar 10, 2010; substantive revision Tue Jun 28, 2011
Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:

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.

[DanTex]

90. Yes, objectifying means treating something like an object.

That's not a "circular argument", because it's not an argument. It's a definition. If you don't know the definition of "object", you can look that one up yourself.

It's probably been explained to you hundreds of times that it has nothing to do with not looking at attractive women, or not having sexual desires, or anything else. It has to do with the way society as a whole treats and values women, placing far too much emphasis on appearance and sex appeal, to the detriment of other qualities.

I get that this makes no sense at all to you. However, the fact that it does make sense to everyone except for a certain group of men with hangups about women should clue you in to the fact that, yes, this is an actual thing that happens in society.

[boston bean]

95. but but but but

bonobo's. that will be the next line of argument.

It's an innate thing. It's something that can't be controlled. It's in the DNA, dude!

[seattledo]

5. It's sad so many of us women...

enjoy the attention. It's destructive.

[redqueen]

111. I'm just going to share these quotes here:

“You painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her, put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting “Vanity,” thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for you own pleasure.”
― John Berger, Ways of Seeing

"Taught from their infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison."
― Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication on the Rights of Woman

[JustAnotherGen]

292. +1000

[MadrasT]

300. That second quote is fantastic. Thanks. n/t

[MindMover]

6. Objectification starts early and can never end for either gender ...

and, I believe that equality and fairness in the workplace today is difficult for any gender, color, creed or manner of animal ...

[Bonobo]

9. Babies expect their parents to feed them.

They objectify their parents.

It doesn't end as you get older.

You want/expect/hope for getting things from other people.

You could even say that much of our behavior is an adaptation for getting what we want and need.

That, people, is "objectifying".

Pulling sexual desire for woman out and saying that's the extent of "objectification" is one of the most myopic things I have ever heard of.

It's human fucking behavior all across the boards.

[MindMover]

14. Across the board ...

starts with baby boys are dressed in blue and girls are dressed in pink ...

[Bonobo]

16. Nope, you missed the point.

I'm not talking about gender roles. It has nothing to do with the objectification I am talking about.

I am talking a much deeper level of how humans are trained to see others as tools to fill their needs, wants and desires.

And it is a HUMAN thing, NOT a gender thing.

Google "Buddhism" and start reading.

[MindMover]

20. I have been a Buddhist from before you were a twinkle in your fathers eyes ...

[Bonobo]

26. Strange thing to say

since you do not know WHEN I was a twinkle in my father's eye.

But if you are a Buddhist and have given the matter reasonable thought, I think you will agree that the separation that humans feel from each other, the lack of connection between me and you, is one of the things that makes us see each other as objects to be used.

It IS destructive and it is also MUCH MUCH BIGGER than the issue of men checking out women's butts.

[MindMover]

35. To that degree of separation lay the seeds of mankind's destruction or salvation ...

There is nothing more important ...

and I know it is longer ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

239. Depending on what seeds one wants to sow

be they seeds of destruction or salvation ...

[MindMover]

280. I am referring to degrees of separation ...

[JustAnotherGen]

293. In what you are describing

Would it also be a "transactional" thing?

Needs, wants, desires - fulfillment.

[Tumbulu]

18. Please answer my question, and don't switch it around.

I am trying to figure out why some women on DU would enjoy seeing women objectified.

[Bonobo]

22. I do not think that they see "objectifying" as the concrete, all-encompassing thing that some do.

I personally thing, as I have said, that what many really are objecting to is that viewing of women with sexual desire in the heart. That strikes me as a very puritanical position.

I ALSO think that the concept of "objectification" (which is much more broad IMO) has been used to try to make it sound less puritanical and more "feminist". I don't buy that either though.

So why do some women want to be viewed as desirable is the question you are really asking I think.

And the answer is that most people want to be viewed as desirable in some way. Either by looks or usefulness in some other way.

People like to feel useful and valued in MANY MANY WAYS. And if your best asset is your looks, people will use that. All people.

[MindMover]

23. Why are there dumb blonde jokes ????

[Fumesucker]

65. Only minority it's still "safe" to tell jokes about

And actual blondes rather than bottle blondes are a small minority of the population.

[leftyladyfrommo]

125. Nietsche said that the only time sex doesn't rear it's ugly head

in male/female relationships is when one or the other of the individuals is so ugly that the other person just isn't interested. I'm paraphrasing.

[aikoaiko]

11. And the jury results are in...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sat Feb 22, 2014, 12:15 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

For those women who think objectifying women as sex objects is OK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024544512

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

More Flame Bait from the HoF
Enough of this already!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 22, 2014, 12:20 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Many people are tired of this discussion, but I see no reason why this particular post should be hidden.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[snooper2]

13. does this include cats?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. and ponies and furries, too.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. A question - If a woman wasn't offended by the SI cover, does that mean...

...that you think she believes objectifying women as sex objects is OK?

[Tumbulu]

27. Well, it sure makes me puzzled

what do you think that cover was about?

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I think it was about three scantily clad models on a beach...

And my understanding is that Sports Illustrated has done that sort of thing once a year since forever. Which means I think it's an out-dated thing that should and probably will vanish sooner rather than later, but even if I delve deep into my outrage bucket and try real hard to work some up, I'm honestly not offended by the cover. It was pretty tame compared to some of the magazine covers I see in the newsagents over here. My issue with it isn't the photo itself, but that 'tradition' of the yearly 'swimsuit' issue...

I was, however, annoyed at some of the OPs spawned from that one. But that's mere annoyance and not outrage...

[Squinch]

80. Violet,

no snark here, simply curiosity.

You say that you think it should vanish sooner rather than later. What is it about it that makes you think that? I get that you think it is outdated, but what is it about it that you think is outdated?

Another question: did you think the boobs in space was acceptable to put on DU?

And lastly: do you think that the glee and controversy over the SI cover contributed to the posting of the boobs in space video?

[Violet_Crumble]

180. Hi Squinch. I've just woken up, so I hope my answers make sense...

You say that you think it should vanish sooner rather than later. What is it about it that makes you think that? I get that you think it is outdated, but what is it about it that you think is outdated?

It reminds me of back when I was a kid. Back then one of the tabloids here had topless Page 3 girls. I don't know about the UK, but here at least, there's now not a single newspaper that has that sort of thing anymore. The whole idea of women posing topless in publications that are for example about politics, news, or sports just seems to me to be an old fashioned thing from the days when life was more sexist (not saying it's not now, but compared to my mum's days things have improved).

Another question: did you think the boobs in space was acceptable to put on DU?

No, and I'm glad Skinner locked it. Plus the context around it being posted bothered me a bit. I don't think the actual photos themselves are a problem. I've drooled over pics of hunky guys in their jocks, and I expect that guys would find covers with topless women pretty hot, but GD isn't the place for it.

And lastly: do you think that the glee and controversy over the SI cover contributed to the posting of the boobs in space video?

I think what I saw happening in the aftermath of the original OP was a DU tradition where shit-stirring and the urge to piss off people played a big part in things. If anything offended me out of the whole thing, it was that boobs in space OP and one that was posted overnight that EarlG locked, because they happened after everyone was aware that there were more than a few DUers saying that sort of thing shouldn't be appropriate in GD and that some DUers were offended. I may come across as a bit hypocritical here, coz someone on DU once asked me not to say 'fuck' in my posts, coz apparently I say that a fair bit, and I didn't stop, but if I saw a bunch of people saying that something does offend them and it's related to sexism or bigotry or racism, then I sure wouldn't start churning it out just for shits and giggles...

[Squinch]

189. I appreciate the responses. I also remember the

"page 6" that was Rupert Murdoch's stock in trade. We had never had it here before, and when he took over the New York Post and put the bikini model (not topless) on, I think it was page 6, the most common response was, "what the hell is THAT about?"

I also very much appreciate the idea of, "No, it's not particularly bothersome to me, but when others have voiced strong objection because of sexism, bigotry or racism, and someone does it because of that objection, I don't support it."

I think following that idea is where most of my learning on these issues has come from. Often I come to see the reason for the objection if I didn't before. Sometimes I don't, but feel it isn't a wasted effort because, at the very least, it shows consideration.

Thanks!

[Violet_Crumble]

251. You just hit the nail on the head about what was bothering me about it...

but when others have voiced strong objection because of sexism, bigotry or racism, and someone does it because of that objection, I don't support it."

It's that bit I bolded. It's that some people are doing it because of the objection that bothers me. It's not like they were posting this stuff before the original OP was posted, they're only doing it because people have objected.

[The Straight Story]

36. Wow, someone actually asking that instead of telling someone what they thought

Here's what I will do - I will tell you what I saw and thought.

What I thought: Click on thread, see the photo. Nice looking ladies, really pretty. Look at that nice warm beach, god I would kill to be there and not freezing my ass off in all this snow. How the hell long is my download of season 8 of Supernatural going to take? Guess I will check out the comments while waiting to watch it.

And what other folks think I thought: I see women as sub human (yep, some have), they are objects, I wanted to whack off looking at the cover, people only post threads like that or reply to them to mark their Territory, I only see women as something to possess and I hate women because I am not outraged enough. DU sucks now because of all of misogynists. It is not natural. Why do I want women to suffer and why don't I care about their problems.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Yr still watching Supernatural? I gave up after series 3...

I'm pretty damn outraged that someone would still be watching it. I think I'm going to have to go and start a series of OPs of Outrage now all about people who still watch a show once it's gone downhill!

[The Straight Story]

45. I am upset with how they objectify sam and dean. Seen them without shirts on!

I was like OMG - now every time I watch it I say some hail mary's and go to confession for supporting such a sexist show (and they implied they have sex with...get this...women. Yeah, I know - they see women as just objects too!).

I am just not the progressive I used to be. So glad others have pointed out I think women are sub human and I hate them all. Sure made me look at the issues in a whole new light....

[Tumbulu]

44. Thanks Straight Story

You guys got all the moisture that we in the dry west are simply dreaming of seeing. Sorry you have too much of it and we have way too little. I may have to kill half of my sheep as there will not be enough food for them and I may have to truck water in (from who knows where!) for them to drink. The wells on my farm went dry in '77 and this is a worse drought so far, so wish that snow back over to us!

[Blue_Adept]

114. Pretty much spot on.

And likely for the majority of guys. Which is what makes us in the wrong I guess.

I still can't get into supernatural. But my 13 year old daughter loves the show and is fanatical about it, which amuses me since it's great to see her having such passion for storytelling.

[RiffRandell]

28. I don't objectify any sex so no need to answer this ridiculous question.

Poor, poor attempt at making up some gibberish.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I have a terrible feeling I've been objectifying the man I've been going out with...

And even worse, he appears to like the objectification. Clearly there's something very wrong with both of us!

[RiffRandell]

38. Oh, you are talking about sexual attraction, and dare I say lust?

I suffer from that too, and my husband won't be home until tomorrow.

I'll manage.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I've yet to admit the worst of all....

I enjoy him noticing me. Which, according to the OP, makes me someone who's lacking in confidence, blah blah blah. Strange, coz I thought it was completely normal behaviour...

btw, have you been keeping count of the number of spin-off OPs yr original one spawned? I gave up a few days ago, but suspect it must be in the 20's now...

[RiffRandell]

103. Well, if it's any consolation I guess I'm bad too.

I like the fact I can still rock a mini skirt at my age, a bikini at my pool and love wearing makeup.

I like it when my husband tells me I look good. I pay him compliments...I love him best in a t-shirt, jeans and Converse.

I have problems, but lack of confidence isn't one.

Mine are more like worrying about Mom with Parkinson's (she fell 3 times this week) and keeping up with my laundry...and worrying about the future of our country and the rest of the world.

No I haven't been keeping count, but of course noticed a few...like this one!

[Violet_Crumble]

168. That sucks about yr mum....

I hope none of her falls have hurt her too much. My mum's elderly and I suspect in the early stages of Alzheimers and she had a heavy fall a few months ago. She chipped her knee-cap, but I was just relieved there were no actual broken bones. She's now got one of those zimmer frames, but refuses to use it when she needs it, and when she does use it in shopping centres, she doesn't watch where she's going and mows into people left, right and centre...

[LadyHawkAZ]

54. Indeed. OP fail

[tandot]

29. OMG ... I am getting so tired of that shit ... YES ... I feel great when my husband loves my tits

and ass ... it actually turns me on...yes...I feel great when he notices that I am enjoying his c*ck getting hard just looking at me.

OMG ... human nature? Do I have to feel guilty about it?

This is what GD has become? Really?

It is really sad that you discount the power woman actually have. Pretty simple ... if I feel turned on ... sh*t happens ... if I am not, tough sh*t.

I will NEVER apologize for enjoying the attention my husband gives to me or how it turns me on.

[The Straight Story]

39. I would say he is a lucky man

but then someone would tell me I hate women and only want to use them and don't care about their problems.

So I will stick with "Thank you fellow human for the input which you have typed out. It has been noted and processed. Please accept my apology if anything in the preceding two sentences was found to be offensive by you. I will now admit to hating women and their causes and plead forgiveness from the high council of elders."

[tandot]

46. You know, TSS, I am on DU daily and I follow most posts and also your posts

I don't post much but I read DU daily (or hourly).

Many of the posts are just sh*t stirring. I don't need to apologize for anything.

Actually, I might have to sign off because our 4-year old is asleep and we finally have some time for ourselves

Good night, have a wonderful evening. Do whatever floats your boat ... and don't feel guilty about it

[msanthrope]

79. It's amazing, isn't it? The insane notion that women like fucking? Some women really like it,

but we are only supposed to like it if it meets the moral standards of others?

[Squinch]

83. In what way did that SI cover have anything to do with women liking or not liking fucking?

[msanthrope]

85. Moving the goalposts to cover for a badly-reasoned OP isn't a very skilled move.

The OP wants a discussion about how women feel. Well, now she's got it. Stop tellling other women what they can write about.

[Squinch]

89. Your statement: "The insane notion that women like fucking." I'm asking you what the issue at hand

has to do with that notion, that you brought into the discussion?

And where, exactly, was I telling other woman what they can write about?

[msanthrope]

92. Again..why are you trying to control the conversation between two women? nt

[Squinch]

96. So I guess you won't be answering the question of what the SI cover had to do with women's liking or

disliking fucking.

Which avoidance is an answer in itself.

[msanthrope]

101. Oh....I have no idea what gave you the impression I was going to answer questions from you. nt

[sufrommich]

81. It has nothing to do with your personal sex life.

Objectification isn't a personal issue,it's a cultural issue. This has been said so many times now that it's pointless to say it again.

[msanthrope]

88. Actually..since the OP asked about our personal feelings, this thread has quite rightly addressed

them.

The OP is asking women on this board their personal feelings. Why are you trying to control the answers?

[sufrommich]

94. I'm not "trying to control anyone's answers"

Objectification isn't about "do you find your partner sexy?" or "does your partner think you're sexy" .It's about the pervasive cultural bombardment of women as objects to be acted upon. I think most people get that.

[msanthrope]

100. I think you are...the problem with poorly-written OPs that question people's feelings is

that you will often get answers you did not expect, are subjective, and that you may not like.

Thus, the replies that insist on redirection.

[Sheldon Cooper]

107. Sorry to break it to you, but this is not about your husband's cock.

[polly7]

112. Why did you disregard the part where she states 'she' gets satisfaction.

Why are you against women being satisfied sexually?

This deliberate and dishonest twisting of words and intent is really disgusting ... and pathetic.

[Vashta Nerada]

32. Trash thread.

[polly7]

33. I see the human body, male, female, young, old, smooth, wrinkled,

as art, and would have no problem with that SI magazine on my coffee table.

I believe a woman has the right to do with her own body exactly as she pleases, and if it pisses people off who are so narrow-minded they see everything as 'objectification', well the more power to her.

[Rex]

48. We subject every human we meet to our own inward standards, whatever those are.

What I consider as value in another person is their interactions with me or others, do they like dog or cats. People in general that have a warm heart THAT is something I value above the flesh and bone I don't give a fuck what gender.

When I see a picture of a women in a bikini, the intellectual side of me says they are being sold as value for their flesh. The physical side finds a general attraction to what I see. When I see a car ad with a model barely dressed laying on the roof, I am not fooled into thinking the car and the woman have anything in common but self and product promotion. I am not fit to judge what a woman does with her life. But I still recognize what I see on a piece of paper or on the Intertubes. They are promoting SEX and COMMERCE. Two attractions dating back thousands of years.

Everything is subjective, but that doesn't mean we cannot address some common standards and not also fool ourselves into thinking everyone is going to follow them.

That probably makes no sense.

[Tumbulu]

192. Thanks Rex

It made sense to me.

[Skittles]

281. I WILL KICK ANALYZING Rexhumbard-ford Bartholamew-Aberdeen Provingrounds Smith ASS

YES INDEED

[Rex]

304. Okay, but you have to say my full name 3 times...while I get to run and hide first!

[1000words]

49. This OP comes off as presumptuous and condescending

This in particular:

" ... that leads you to believe that without a man noticing you that you are not complete?"

[Tumbulu]

50. Sorry, but I cannot figure this out

really, why would some women defend this sort of objectifying?

Do you have a theory?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. What I'm not understanding is this...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think women who aren't offended by the cover of the magazine are defending objectification.

I'm not offended by it, but I'm not defending objectification, which I know exists...

[Tumbulu]

58. It seems as though there are a number of women on DU who

do not object to women being objectified. They appear to like the idea, at least it seems that way to me.

On that cover, it was pretty clear to me that that was an example of objectifying, which is why I used that as an example. I am trying to understand why some women defend objectification. I did not mean to present some sort of a litmus test.

[mythology]

76. I would imagine it starts from not seeing the magazine as objectification

You seem to be starting from the assumption that it is, and then accusing people who don't agree with you of being bad people.

To have asked the question in a more neutral manner, you could have asked something like "To the women who don't see the SI swimsuit issue as objectifying women, why not?" The way you asked the question was leading.

But you don't even define the word objectifying in your view. It's kind of like how Sarah Palin said she was starting a "new conservative feminist movement", which I'm guessing would not mesh with the definition of feminism held by many here. But even here there is a wide variety of what defines the word feminist. Some say that watching porn should be considered morally inconsistent with being a feminist and others wouldn't.

[Tumbulu]

164. Well, those are good points

but I beg to differ about calling the people "bad". Just viewing the world very differently than I do.

And you are right, that would have been a better way to word it. I wonder if I should go try to edit it or if it is too late for that.

[stevenleser]

59. I would say this article on Wikipedia explains the differences of opinions well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification#Female_self-objectification

See in particular the headings titled "Female self-objectification" and "Views on sexual objectification"

That is before one even gets into the origins of the ideas of objectification and whether they are good science and whether they are predictive.

[Tumbulu]

61. Thanks, stevenleser nt

[KitSileya]

52. I am not one of them.

[yt]

[/yt]

Still some women posters here on DU claim that we see female nudity as "dirty" if we objected to the posting of SI SI. That we hate sexuality, that we want to make sex forbidden, that we want to force men not to be attracted to women. More and more, I am coming to see the women who posts such egregious mischaracterizations of what we have said as akin to blue-collar republicans, who so determinedly defend the rights of the 1% to exploit them and keep them subjugated, just for the off chance that they will be noticed as a "good" republican and given a smidgen of power.

For those of us that object to the increasingly only way women are portrayed nowadays, it's not about your relationship with your hubby, or about female nudity as "dirty", it is about increasing numbers of girls with eating disorders and cosmetic surgery as 18th birthday present, it's about 17% of Congress being women (in 2014!), it's about the (hopefully last) push back against equality between the genders.




Tumbulu, I know that this OP wasn't directed to me, but if I had posted this as an argument to the poster I wanted to reply to, I would be accused of stalking, I think, as I had a contretemps with her on her original thread. I hope you forgive me for a slightly off topic post.

[Tumbulu]

55. You have not gone off topic

and I thought this was a discussion board. Thanks for your thoughtful input.

I agree with you, and do think it is like those blue collar republicans, good observation!

[Waiting For Everyman]

69. Exactly so. "akin to blue-collar republicans"

"...akin to blue-collar republicans who so determinedly defend the rights of the 1% to exploit them and keep them subjugated..."

You put it very well, and I agree, it's the very same thing. Don't know, but I'm wondering if maybe the psychology of it is similar to Stockholm Syndrome.

What alarms me about it in addition to the points you raised, is the effect I see this objectification-corrupted pop culture of ours having on teens' and young adults' ideas of how they should be, and act. I don't think it's any coincidence that violence among young people who are dating is fairly common today, whereas it was pretty rare in decades past -- it's clearly a rapidly accelerating problem.

I'm kind of shocked that people, specifically women, feel no responsibility for the garbage they are approving of being dumped into the public consciousness. Fine by me if they want to keep insisting that's the the thing to do, because I'm a senior and I won't be around decades into the future when the "chickens come home to roost" from this. But they don't need to blame anyone else for it when that happens, because their attitudes today are molding it into being. Literally.

The second thing I object to (as a woman) is that these models have the right to do what they want, yes, and people can look at the pictures, yes of course, but I don't want to see it when I don't want to see it -- and that's MY prerogative too. Their rights end where mine (and others who don't want to see it) begin. Their entitlement to "empower" themselves is not unlimited.

Coming back to agreeing with your point once again, that empowerment they speak of has a very libertarian ring to it.

[KitSileya]

73. The lack of any consideration of what it does to society

is what chills me the most. They simply do not care about the wider consequences of the increasing focus on women's looks and body parts. They don't want to think about what it does to young girls and boys, and if we try to encourage them to think about it, we are "mean". And that is an exact quote - our meaning with trying to explain this is "to be mean."

Well, let me tell you, that is such a republican way of thinking, that if it weren't for the fact that it would hurt so many good progressives, I'd be tempted to let them live with the consequences of their views, just like so many of us would like to do for republicans. Unfortunately, they don't care about the world their children and grandchildren grow up in, and they certainly don't care about unrelated women who tell them their experiences and how this focus on t&a hurts them - for they don't believe these women anyway. Why should they?

Like republicans who don't care when Tree-hugger talks about how it is being poor in America, they don't care to hear about young teenage girls starving themselves and considering boob jobs to live up to the supernatural perfection (courtesy of Adobe Photoshop tm) they see in SI and elsewhere - for they hardly see any women do anything else, and if they do, the first paragraph in any article about any accomplished woman comments on her looks, so they know how important it is. And these posters don't care about boys being encouraged to disdain anything that is considered feminine if it isn't something to stick their willie in. Why should boys play with girl things, why should boys actually talk to girls - they're only good for one thing, right? And when those same boys don't have anyone to talk to, and haven't been taught how to talk about their feelings, and some of them commit suicide because of it, that's just too bad, because the right to look at SI swimsuit issue and all the other semi-nude pics of women is more important.

I have never been so disappointed by such so-called Democrats in my life.

[dogknob]

56. Liberals post things like "used my boobs to get out of a speeding ticket" on FB all the time...

The problem is that people don't care about much unless it directly affects their interests right now.

This is our challenge in getting rid of Issa in my district. Discussions of how sideboob is setting us back to the Victorian era... umm...

[WillyT]

64. Oh Yeah.. That's Gonna Work...

[Waiting For Everyman]

70. A while back another DUer gave a very good answer to this question.

It was a very thoughtful and informative post, and explained a lot for me when I was wondering pretty much the same thing you're asking.

Hat tip to Locut0s:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024333091#post235


My response post, just below it:
Shamelessness for its own sake is not a virtue.


Also, I don't know if you happened to see this post here in the Video & Multimedia forum, but if you didn't, it might interest you:

Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism, a video lecture by British feminist Gail Dines.

[Feral Child]

74. Trash thread

No More Gender Wars!

[MadrasT]

75. This is an interesting question and I too am curious.

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 10:01 AM - Edit history (1)

My idea of dressing nicely is "no holes, no stains, and it's clean".

I *stopped* wearing beautiful clothes, cosmetics, dresses, and high heels because I *hated* the attention it attracted from men. There is a clear correlation in my life between the amount of unwanted attention I receive and how I present myself.

I *thought* I was dressing "for me" and the world communicated something different to me.*

In order to be viewed as a person and not a female, I stopped presenting as female. (I don't present as male, I just dress fairly neutrally and don't wear makeup or stereotypically "feminine" clothes).


*Note: I have Aspergers Syndrome so the way I experience the world is very different from most people. Sometimes it gives me laser-like clarity to see through bullshit, and sometimes it just leaves me clueless. All I know is my experience on this, which was "dressing nice attracts males, do not like, stop."

[Drew Richards]

327. Do you have a number? Mine is 8....its everywhere...

[msanthrope]

78. You have objectified women with your one dimensional OP that insists on a blind dichotomy

of opinion. Do you think the women on this board are incapable of nuanced, reasoned thought? Then why else would you post something so facile?

Your OP is demeaning to women because you are not asking questions in good faith...you are setting up strawmen. I think Major Nikon upthread eviscerated your technique quite neatly, so I will confine myself to the insult of your paucity of ideas.

Frankly, the SI issue ranks at about 47,987 on my list of things to give a fuck about. I get to see, nearly every single day, what poverty and a lack of education and opportunity does for women in real life...and you know what? Those women don't have the privilege of posting blather on an Internet forum about a magazine, because they are grappling with actual problems.

So I'm really glad that some women of HoF are focused on the fucking swimsuit issue...and not things like the fact that actual women and children in this country are starving, homeless, and true victims of an oppressive system that values them as trash. I'm really glad that what you've all decided to focus on seems to be decided based on class privilege....because frankly, I can only imagine privileged women, women free from want and with time on their hands giving a flying fuck and writing so much mental masturbation.

[Squinch]

84. Your outrage at the time this issue is taking away from ending hunger seems to be

contradicted by the number of posts you have in these threads.

[msanthrope]

86. Even lawyers get time off. And I appreciate the solidarity shown for the OP...you have your

work cut out for you.

[Squinch]

91. Why yes, they do. So your concern about time taken from "other issues" isn't all that valid, is it?

[msanthrope]

93. I have no idea what you consider valid, and I care not to find out. But you seem upset

that women in this thread are disagreeing with the OP. Why is that?

[boston bean]

98. you seem pretty upset that there are those who would disagree with you.

[msanthrope]

102. Another post about women's feelings. Thank you for proving my point. nt

[Squinch]

99. I see many agreeing and many disagreeing. I have no problem with that. Do you?

[msanthrope]

104. I generally find that when people say they have "no problem" with something, but spend

many posts attempting to demonstrate why another's point of view must be challenged, then, they in fact have a problem.

I really dislike it when people use passive language of that sort, as if their actual meaning isn't apparent.

[boston bean]

105. pointing out that what they are using as a point of disagreement isn't

actually objectification, isn't actual disagreement. It is pointing out they are talking about something completely different.

[Squinch]

106. My language in my posts to you today has not been passive.

My posts to you have either been direct and simple questions about things you posted, or pretty baldly stated observations about things you have said.

You and I are both expressing disagreement with each other. That doesn't mean that either "has a problem." It means that we disagree.

[polly7]

113. +1,000,000 nt.

[msanthrope]

117. Thank you. You know I asked to be banned in HoF last week...they refused. nt

[polly7]

118. Oh ... just keep an eye out for a call-out filled with lies

then go in and confront them on it. That's what I did. They hate that, and will ban you immediately!

[msanthrope]

121. That would mean reading HoF. And then posting there. Both of which I've never done, except

when a direct link to an offending post has been provided through GD. It's funny though...back when they were sending out invitations, I got one. Let's just say that the now-banned troll who invited me to their corner was pleased as punch with herself over the gleaning of medical information on one of their "enemies." A vile, nasty thing.

I hear they allow women to be called "dogs." Not my kind of place then.n

[polly7]

124. Agree completely. nt.

[RBStevens]

141. Part of the reason that women and children are 'valued as trash'

is because the sexual objectification of women is completely normalized by, amongst a million other things, the cover of the SI SE.

And "mental masturbation"? So we shouldn't think about the social/political issues that cause women and children to be valued as trash?

[msanthrope]

143. Welcome back? nt

[RBStevens]

145. Thanks?

I am interested though if you have an opinion on whether or not images like that of the SI have any bearing on women being valued a trash.

[msanthrope]

148. Who were you, then? nt

[RBStevens]

151. I'm not sure how I am supposed to answer that.

It's fine with me if you don't want to talk about the issue/s brought up in this thread but I'm feeling a little weird about you personally questioning me like this.

[msanthrope]

305. Try the truth....what was your last username? nt

[Tumbulu]

165. How does objectifying women improve women's work options?

I am sorry that I am simple, and not nuanced enough for you.

But you honestly think that the constant depiction of women as sex objects everywhere is helping women and girls achieve a chance to get an education and a decent job? That it makes no difference? That it does not reinforce the idea that women are trash and deserve no better?

I am a woman farmer, not too many of us. I have little interest in seeing women continually being encouraged to be valued for what they look like rather than what they do and who they are. And that goes for men as well. Defense of objectification puzzles me completely.

[RBStevens]

174. If this poster agrees that women (and children) are valued as trash

then why will they not engage in the conversation that posits that the ubiquitous sexual objectification of women *may* be a part of why women are regarded as trash?

It's obvious that I think it is part of the reason that women are regarded as less-than, but if this poster does not think so and will not engage in the discussion then it only leaves me to wonder what they DO think are the causes of women being valued as "trash".

[Tumbulu]

178. welcome to DU

and thanks for joining the discussion.

[RBStevens]

184. Thanks for the welcome.

And I am happy to be a part of it - at least the parts where we're actually discussing the topic.

[justiceischeap]

97. What I think about objectification, the SI cover and DU

I think a lot of these posts have one intention...to stir up shit and lots of people on DU fall for it. It's not to say that some people on DU treat others poorly, because they do--both genders. However, if a poster is so compelled to post the SI swimsuit cover or boobs in space videos, the correct place isn't GD, it would be the lounge. The fact that those things are posted in GD and allowed to stay in GD when they have nothing to do with democracy or politics (and I'm not referring to body politics) makes it pretty darn clear that someone is trying to start trouble. Why most people who participate in those threads don't realize that yet is beyond me.

Does objectification happen? Yes, whether you think objectification is a real thing or not, it is to those who feel they've been objectified. Who is anyone on DU to say that something that has been said or done to another person doesn't make that person feel like shit or less than equal? By denying their feelings on the subject, you're treating them like someone less than equal--whether you like it or not or even agree. That's what it really comes down to--someone posts the cover of SI swimsuit, someone else is offended by it and if you deny their feelings of offense, you're not treating them as an equal.

[2pooped2pop]

110. Well, at least as long as you guys are spending your time still fighting over the same

stuff, maybe the rest of the threads will have less hate and fighting on them. So keep on fighting crew.

[redqueen]

115. I used to think it was ok.

I was completely oblivious to the issue of objectification, though. To me, it was just having fun and being sexually playful. I did notice that the intensity of sexualization was enormously off balance, though. But that was the only unfairness I noticed. In my naivete, I thought simply equalizing the number of sexualized images would = fairness for women. It should have been a huge wake up call when I started noticing the different ways images of women and men were treated. Even here, it was obvious. When I used to participate in the Lounge, I noticed that threads showing sexualized images of women were not trashed or criticized, but in my effort to 'balance the scales', my threads showing sexualized images of men were routinely trashed by men posting images of unattractive men. One was even locked, despite the thread showing sexualized images of women which inspired my thread being left open. That really should have been the wake up call. It was another step but it didn't cause me to make the switch from liberal feminism to radical feminism.

The thing is, I completely missed all the cultural messages involved. It wasn't until I saw first hand the different ways men treated women depending on whether they participated or not that it clicked. That was what finally made it all clear. Then I started reading about these concepts: objectification, the Madonna/Whore complex, the male gaze, etc.

After I started learning about these things, it was like a veil had been lifted. Suddenly so many things that seemed so inexplicable made perfect sense. Not that any of it was right, but I at least understood why the unfairness and inequality was there.

Sorry, started babbling there - but that's why I thought it was OK. I simply did not recognize the cultural context, the significance of the inequality, or the idea of objectification itself.

[The Straight Story]

120. Reminds me of

A few folks I have known over the years (and still do know a couple of them) who got 'saved'.

They still saw stealing as a sin, but now they saw stealing everywhere. Let's say you smoked before - was a sin still, but now you are using money for a sin that could go to orphans or the church, so you are stealing resources god gave you from them.

Play dungeons and dragons, huge sin because in the game there are spells, magic, mages, witches, and you have to kill things - best to burn those books and play other games like jeebus bingo.

Storm coming? Caused by sinners and not following the word of the lord as pat robertson interprets it.

We get it. Men, women, even kids are used as objects by the media. I see it too, just go over to fox news and not only the anchors but some of the stories they choose to be on the front page and you will see women set about as objects to lure in clicks (just went to check that - 2 stories one butt selfies and another on breast implants as an example. Not much on Uganda and the rest of the world).

One would have to be blind not to see it. Problem comes in here a few ways. One, it is not always bad, or wrong, or 'sinful', for people to see such images and like them. It's just not. Just because we can like something and someone knows that and makes an ad or cover utilizing that does not mean we are so one-dimensional all we see is someone we want to use or abuse.

Where the 'war' comes in is when people tell us that we do. I spent some time checking out the twitter posts and such from these ladies and kate upton as well. They were excited to have been chosen for the cover, they are models, it is what they do, this was a big victory for them. To them - I am the object. A consumer to get some money from using ad revenue, sales, whatever. They don't care about me, I am just some person they can use as a means to an end of their personal goals. Which is just fine with me.

We are all 'presented' as something at some time to someone or some group. Used to drive me nuts when I was a deputy -we had to shine our brass each night, buff our shoes (unless you had those ever shiny ones, forget the term for them), shave, hair trimmed just right, etc. We had daily roll call and inspection to make sure we maintained the 'image' of what people expected us to look like. You could be the best cop there and get hammered in roll call if you if you weren't 'presentable'. It was worse at the ambulance company I later worked at.

Again, no one is really denying that people are used as objects to sell or get attention. Difference is how one is offended or not by it and what they read into it. If you look upthread you see what I thought when I saw the cover. Basically it was ho-hum. Never heard of those three ladies before, probably never will again, they were/are attractive but nothing I don't see in the summer near the osu campus. Dime a dozen.

On the air not too long ago myself and the station owner discussed portrayal of gays in tv/movies. It generally perpetuates the stereotypes (flamboyant/loves antiques/fashion/etc). We did however also discover many other counter examples (like Jack Harkness in torchwood). No one seemed upset over those because they didn't feed the stereotype, but then one could argue they were trying too hard or denying the character a trait they might actually have in real life (and I follow John Barrowman and he is not like his character and does seem to more fit the stereotype in real life. The guy is freakin awesome across the board).

We get out things what we read into them, generally speaking. If you are coming from a position that everything is centered around one thing you will see more in something than others will. And just because it affects you in a way it doesn't others does not mean they are haters, don't care, just want to use someone, and so on.

I think it has been said that we should not tell others they cannot be offended by something. True. But you can't tell others they should be either. I don't want to race in like some white knight and rescue those ladies from doing something they enjoy and worked hard for. If I don't like the magazine I won't buy it. I don't get to define what others feel and they don't get to tell me what I feel or who I am because I don't feel the same way they do.

We can discuss it all, and we have. Problem is now myself, and lots of other allies of women and their problems in society, are kicked to the curb and told not only are we not allies we see women as sub human, we are sick, we only think about touching ourselves, we are ignorant, etc. And that is why we have so much back and forth. You honestly feel how you do about something, I don't agree always with the general assessment and applications, we discuss it all, fine. I still think you are a liberal that cares about women and others issues. Apparently I, and others, are not afforded the same.

[redqueen]

126. So many distortions, so little time.

Sexual objectification is everywhere. This is reality, it's not because "I got saved"

You even went on to admit it so WTF is up with comparing me to evangelicals?

One would have to be blind not to see it. Problem comes in here a few ways. One, it is not always bad, or wrong, or 'sinful', for people to see such images and like them. It's just not. Just because we can like something and someone knows that and makes an ad or cover utilizing that does not mean we are so one-dimensional all we see is someone we want to use or abuse.

Stop with the "sinful" bullshit. The feminist critique of objectification is not based on the idea of "sin" so please just stop. This is as bad as your "DOORS!" bullshit.

Where the 'war' comes in is when people tell us that we do. I spent some time checking out the twitter posts and such from these ladies and kate upton as well. They were excited to have been chosen for the cover, they are models, it is what they do, this was a big victory for them. To them - I am the object. A consumer to get some money from using ad revenue, sales, whatever. They don't care about me, I am just some person they can use as a means to an end of their personal goals. Which is just fine with me.

We are all 'presented' as something at some time to someone or some group. Used to drive me nuts when I was a deputy -we had to shine our brass each night, buff our shoes (unless you had those ever shiny ones, forget the term for them), shave, hair trimmed just right, etc. We had daily roll call and inspection to make sure we maintained the 'image' of what people expected us to look like. You could be the best cop there and get hammered in roll call if you if you weren't 'presentable'. It was worse at the ambulance company I later worked at.

Those are not examples of objectification. The concept of sexual objectification is mainstream feminist theory. Before that, objectification was mainstream sociological theory. It isn't rocket science. There are many men and a few women trying to push that propaganda here, but it's as bullshit as the idea that evolution is "just a theory".

Again, no one is really denying that people are used as objects to sell or get attention. Difference is how one is offended or not by it and what they read into it. If you look upthread you see what I thought when I saw the cover. Basically it was ho-hum. Never heard of those three ladies before, probably never will again, they were/are attractive but nothing I don't see in the summer near the osu campus. Dime a dozen.

I get it, you don't think objectification is anything to be too bothered about. We disagree. Whatever. Some people aren't offended by racism.

As for what you see on campus - for the umpteenth time, that is not the same. Those women who are walking around are just going about their day. They are not bent in unnatural poses in order to titillate men. They are not being used to sell "sports" magazines. How can you still not get this?

We get out things what we read into them, generally speaking. If you are coming from a position that everything is centered around one thing you will see more in something than others will. And just because it affects you in a way it doesn't others does not mean they are haters, don't care, just want to use someone, and so on.

No, women are not just imagining this. It's not about how it affects me personally, it's about how it affects society.

Again, this is mainstream feminist theory.

I think it has been said that we should not tell others they cannot be offended by something. True. But you can't tell others they should be either. I don't want to race in like some white knight and rescue those ladies from doing something they enjoy and worked hard for. If I don't like the magazine I won't buy it. I don't get to define what others feel and they don't get to tell me what I feel or who I am because I don't feel the same way they do.

More distortions. Nobody said those women needed to be saved.

And yeah, I don't get to tell people that they should be offended by racism, either, but guess what happens when someone isn't? That's right - others make judgments about those people, as is their right.

We can discuss it all, and we have. Problem is now myself, and lots of other allies of women and their problems in society, are kicked to the curb and told not only are we not allies we see women as sub human, we are sick, we only think about touching ourselves, we are ignorant, etc. And that is why we have so much back and forth. You honestly feel how you do about something, I don't agree always with the general assessment and applications, we discuss it all, fine. I still think you are a liberal that cares about women and others issues. Apparently I, and others, are not afforded the same.

Get off the fucking cross. Nobody is "kicking you to the curb". Got a quote from someone calling you "sick"?

I don't dispute that you care about some women's issues. Most, probably. But not the ones that threaten this particular form of male privilege. This one is sacrosanct to brogressives. We get it.

[RBStevens]

144. If I had a dollar for every time

I'd been likened to a born-again Christian for advocating for women's rights I'd pretty damn wealthy. Seriously.

[The Straight Story]

150. If I had a dime for every time

I was told I hate women, don't care about their rights, can't see a pic of them without whacking off or wanting to 'do' them, etc, I would make bill gates look like a pauper.

[RBStevens]

152. People have actually said straight up to you that you hate women?

That seems pretty harsh. Doesn't stuff like that get *hidden*?

[leftyladyfrommo]

123. As long as you care what men think about you

it is difficult to get enough distance to see the big picture.

Once you see the big picture you begin to realize just how awful things really are right now. And it's not just men objectifying women it's also the women who buy into it.

It's a tough problem.

[redqueen]

127. Excellent insight.

Because it wasn't until that particular man revealed the nature of how he saw / respected / cared about about me and other women we knew, that I saw it.

[leftyladyfrommo]

317. I don't think women have a very good idea

of how men think of them. Then when you finally see things clearly it comes as a real shock.

A few years ago I broke up with a guy after a kind of long relationship. And for some reason I just totally lost all interest in men. Don't care what they think except when it comes to my business. Not interested. Don't want them around. Life is just so much better without them.

That was such an eye opener. Now I just see these young women who put so much emphasis on being "hot" and it just kind of makes me ill.

[redqueen]

320. The message that what men think of their looks is of utmost importance

comes from just about every direction. It is so important to provide an alternate view to girls early in their adolescence. Unfortunately countering an avalanche of cultural messages with just a few voices is an uphill battle to say the least.

[leftyladyfrommo]

322. I'm not sure we will ever get away from it.

I can't think about it too much. I get too depressed.

There is just so much more to life than sex. Really when you look at the long term of a whole life sex really just isn't that important in the end. And not having to have sex comes as a huge relief to a lot of older women. So odd. Because sex seems so important when you are young and so not important when you are old.

[Tumbulu]

191. Thanks for your answer

it helps me understand.

[redqueen]

321. I imagine parenting has a lot to do with it.

Both of my parents reinforced cultural messages about the importance of a womans appearance.

[Tumbulu]

324. Yes, we really don't see these things until we are much older

we think it is just what is expected.

[polly7]

128. Why are you so insulting towards women who happen to see

the beauty of the human form and disagree that women are being objectified for showing it? Do you have this big a problem with female sculptors and other artists using nude models? Are they just being traitors to their gender?

Maybe you should start a 'cover that shit up! campaign' to stop all of this before it really gets out of hand.

[KitSileya]

129. Well, when only 5% of the artists in the Modern Art section of the Metropolitan Museum are female,

but 85% percent of the nudes are of women, that says something about female sculptors and artists, as well as how the art world looks at women... In 1973, the numbers were 4% and 76% respectively, which says something about what they consider "beauty of the human form" (apparently, men aren't beautiful when naked, then?)

It appears that in order to get into a museum, a female artist has a better chance if she's painted nude by a colleague, than with her own work.

[polly7]

131. Who said naked men aren't beautiful? - point that out please.

It certainly wasn't me, so I can only assume you're stating your own beliefs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4544810

That the human form isn't only considered beautiful by female artists, and that male artists possibly find them more beautiful as inspiration answers absolutely nothing with regard to my question.

[KitSileya]

134. Nope. When only 15% of nudes on display at an art museum are of men,

then either artists don't want to paint nude men (they don't think it is beautiful) or the museum directors don't think male nudes are artistic enough. Or perhaps, just perhaps, our society doesn't want to see male nudes like they want to see female nudes. 15% vs 85% - and that has gone down from 24% -76% 40 years ago. It seems that male nudes are getting less appreciated as time goes by.

In any of these cases, female artists apparently don't make good enough art to make up more than 5% of the art on display at the Metropolitan Museum in NY - a percentage that has changed exactly 1 percentage point in the last 40 years (and remember, we're only counting the modern art section, because I think everyone understands that prior to the 1970s, female artists led the lives of Shakespeare's sister to a greater or lesser extent.)

[polly7]

135. Many people find the female form beautiful,

perhaps many more than do the male form when it comes to art. What exactly does that have to do with the question I asked the poster (not you), regarding why she/he is being so insulting to women who appreciate the beauty of the female form, and don't agree that we're gender-traitors for doing so ... any more than those women who choose to sculpt, paint or otherwise portray it?

[KitSileya]

139. The female form is beautiful -

but when it is only the form that is portrayed, and mostly in specific poses/with specific garb, it helps form our view of women. We are more likely to see pictures of half-naked/naked women than men, we are more likely to see half-naked/naked pictures of women than of women doing stuff, women of every profession are more likely to have their looks and their clothes commented upon than men, in articles, for example. The female form is beautiful - but it isn't displayed in a vacuum. When women say that to display the female form in certain venues (such as on political discussion boards) contribute to a cultural view of women as only worth as much as their looks, it isn't saying that women are ugly. Tumbulu asked women who thought that objectifying women as sex objects was ok why they thought that objectifying women was ok, if they thought it supported equality in the market place and in the work place. Tumbulu said nothing about these women being gender traitors - those are your words.

My pointing out the art was to make the point, as I said, that female artists and sculptors seem to have a greater chance of getting into a museum if they got a nude painted of themselves by a male artist, than by having their own art displayed. Do you think that may be contributing factor to female artists painting female nudes? After all, according to the National Museum of women in the arts, 51% of all visual artists are female, but only 5% of artists on display in museums are women, and only 1/3 of gallery representation is women. Do you think there's commercial pressure at work here when it comes to appreciating the beauty of the female form?

[polly7]

142. You didn't take that insulting OP as implying some women are gender-traitors?

Good for you. Others here have't missed it, or all of the other demeaning, horrible accusations. I don't believe a woman posing to show the beauty of the human form is sexually objectifying herself or anyone else. If you don't like it, don't look.

[KitSileya]

146. I wish I could not look.

More to the point, I wish that if the pictures were there, they would be of the female form - and not the photoshopped unnatural "female" form. I wish my students weren't completely surrounded by the female form in its current typical portrayal - photoshopped women and female body parts in ads - the "beauty" of which they are told girls need to have to be beautiful or even normal. The thinness, the lack of any humanness such as scars, blemishes, even pores, the two roles most women in ads have to take (either alluring sexual object, or frazzled mom magically calmed by the product advertised) all of it is damaging to our young women and men. It has nothing to do with whether you find the female form beautiful, and everything with it being plastered everywhere and impossible to avoid.

But don't worry, the next time one of my female students come to me to talk about how she wants a boob job, I'll tell her that if she doesn't like it, she shouldn't look.

[polly7]

147. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. nt.

[Tumbulu]

166. Are you serious?

You cannot see the difference between nudity as a celebration of our body and nudity for the purposes of dishonesty?

[polly7]

193. Nudity for the purposes of dishonesty???

Wth are you talking about. The SI magazine is highlighting three beautiful women .... on a beach - for people to admire their beauty. What exactly is dishonest about that?

[Tumbulu]

202. Are you serious yourself? nt

[polly7]

205. Uhhh .... I didn't say 'are you serious!' - you did.

[Cofitachequi]

130. Isn't the whole point of "choice" to be what you want to be?

There are lots of people with lots of attitudes and beliefs.

If a woman (or man) is satisfied with being attractive to others, so be it.

A better question might be, "why are some people threatened by those who don't feel the same way that they do?"

[gollygee]

133. Objectification does not mean "attractive to others"

Here's a definition:

Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:

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.

[Cofitachequi]

136. Then clearly "objectification" is wrong for all. Men and women.

It is a tough call, however in regards to the "Case of the Astronaut Model".

The second element of the seven element definition provided in your post points to a person's autonomy and self-determination. Should a person (man or woman) make a choice to be objectified, what is one to do?

[gollygee]

149. Do you think going up in space (or simulating that) was her idea?

I think it's much more likely that she went along with an idea that other people came up with, and that those people were almost certainly men. And that they then sought out a model with appropriately sized breasts to take that job, and that the models were pretty interchangeable so long as that particular body part was appropriately sized. If Kate Upton wouldn't have done it, she could have easily been exchanged for a different model.

There is something called self objectification, but I think for this to have been an example of that, she would have had to think, "Hmmm I wonder what would happen to my breasts in a weightless environment? I bet men would really like to see that," and then should would have sought out the opportunity.

But a group of men wanting to see how breasts react to weightlessness is a pretty clear example of objectification. Her agreeing to it doesn't make it less objectification. If she'd said no, it wouldn't matter. Her breasts were the point, she wasn't. She was very much an object.

She has the right to choose to accept a job that objectifies her. I'm not debating that.

[RBStevens]

153. +1

[Cofitachequi]

154. I've only seen two photos, both posted on discussion threads here on DU....

...but it seems to me that the model is doing run of the mill, provocative, modeling poses, designed to titillate.

It may not have been her idea, but at the same time (as far as I know), she's a very well known and well compensated model. Taking a job and cashing the check were likely her choice.

You do set out an intetresting test for "objectification", however. If she could be replaced with, " a model with appropriately sized breasts ", and that model got the same money, and treatment, then you are correct. This is objectification. However, if this model's name and image bring a particularly high price, then there is something about her uniqueness that argues against the charge of objectification. If she is not readily replacable with some other pair of breasts, it is her unique qualities (qualities that she has worked to perfect) that has gotten her the job, and objectification is a harder charge to support.

Regardless, if this model makes a career choice, she is good at it, she is in demand and she is in control of her destiny- more power to her.

[Warren Stupidity]

230. "run of the mill model poses" are designed to sell clothes, primarily to women.

The SI issue, and the idiotic boobs in space nonsense in particular, was selling something else entirely.

[MindMover]

132. Objectification is mankinds way of keeping another person in bondage ...

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

and limiting them to a subhuman condition ...

IE: Hitler, Stalin, Nugent, Kim, and many others ....

[gulliver]

137. For those who think monomania is OK...

It's not.

[btrflykng9]

138. The problem I see is that society has decided that a woman's primary value is how she looks

and the sad thing is that women play into it by attempting to "win" the game of being and behaving just like men. That is a losing game...In this respect, equality isn't what would benefit us because being equally vulgar or distasteful isn't doing women any favors.

[Tumbulu]

169. welcome to DU and well said

thanks for joining in.

[btrflykng9]

196. Thank you for the welcome :)

[craigmatic]

140. You're talking second wave feminism to a generation that is more third wave.

If women want to do that it's their choice they're free to chose issues like that they're not monolithic.

[Tumbulu]

171. I am asking women who think it is OK to tell me why

that is all. Do you think it is OK? If so, why?

Thanks.

[CFLDem]

158. This anti choice feminism is prude and disgusting.

Women should be able to promote their looks every much as men can.

You don't hear this self righteous shit when men show off their biceps or abs.

[Gormy Cuss]

159. Did you read the OP?

WTF does choice have to do with it?

[CFLDem]

160. Choice is about more than abortion

if that's what you're getting at.

Choice includes all decisions women make, including the choice to take advantage of objectification by promoting their looks.

It's shameful to chide women for using their looks when no such thing is done for men.

Like I said- disgusting

[Gormy Cuss]

162. I didn't ask what it had to do with abortion. Choice isn't the topic.

The OP is asking a very specific question about objectification. It's not about looks.

[Tumbulu]

173. Sorry to appear self righteous

but what is the reason to approve of objectification? And promote it no less. Of anyone, but I am asking women about objectifying women. I have known a few women who try to "get' a man by all this sexy stuff. I have always wondered why and if is societally imposed or a lack of self worth, or maybe something that some people find fun and or exciting. if that is the case, please share, I am curious, as I cannot for the life of me understand it.

[CFLDem]

183. It's could be any mixture of all three motivations.

But in a general sense it's just part of the mating game. It's who we are as humans and there's nothing wrong with it.

[ecstatic]

163. I think your OP is offensive

You've made a whole bunch of assumptions based on your personal, subjective worldview.

[Tumbulu]

175. Sorry, but I honestly do not understand this

please if you have a perspective to share on why you think objectifying women is fun or something that brings you or someone you know joy, please let me know.

As I have said in a few of my posts above, I do know a few women who really thrive on this sort of stuff. I have never understood it at all. Which is why I am asking. Sorry to have asked it in an awkward way.

[ecstatic]

190. Your starting point is that you are the authority on what counts as objectifying women

That's where everything else goes wrong.

Example:

Person A: Look at those gangbangers! They need to be arrested and sent to jail!

Person B: Actually, they're not gangbangers. I know them, they are nice, law abiding kids.

Person A: What is your problem? Why do you support gangs? Are you a criminal too?

If person B had agreed that they were a gang, then Person A's follow up comment would have made more sense. However, Person B disagreed with Person A's original assessment, so Person A's conclusion/follow up questions were out of line. Similarly, if someone disagrees with your OPINION about what counts as objectification, that does not mean they support objectification. Clearly, not everyone will agree on what rises to the level of objectification.

[Tumbulu]

195. OK, in my OP is asked about objectification

without specifics, in general.

I am asking for help understanding why women approve of objectifying women. For some illumination of motive. I did not state my definition of what objectifying was.

If you find nothing objectifying, then you don't really have anything to say about this.

If you find something objectifying and do not approve of it, then you also have nothing to add.

If you find something objectifying and you approve of it, then my question is why?

I have met a few women who just thrive on male attention, they seem to live for it. Do they get vicarious pleasure from these sorts of images? Really, what is it? Why do some women approve of objectifying images of women?

I do not, I never have and I simply do not understand it, hence my question.

[DontTreadOnMe]

206. I agree, and that is the definition of Radical Fundamentalism

it occurs in religion, business, politics, ...and gender wars.

[Zorra]

167. It's not ok...but...never give a sucker an even break

[phleshdef]

170. This pseudo-feminist bullshit does nothing but distract from real women's issues that desperately...

...need a lot more attention.

Sex is part of who we are. I take pleasure in looking at women that I find attractive (which is a pretty broad category for me). There are men and women that get the same kind of pleasure by looking at the opposite sex or the same sex, depending on what you like. Theres nothing wrong with that. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Get over it. Its not sexist. Its not misogynistic. Its HUMAN. Worry about a real problem. Its a much more valuable use of your time.

[RBStevens]

176. What are the "real problems" facing women?

And do you think that it might be possible that sexual objectification of women may be underlying a lot of them?

[phleshdef]

179. Do you really need me to explain them to you?

Unequal pay.
Attacks on a woman's right to choose.
Women's poverty issues.
Sexual harassment in the workplace.
Breast cancer.
A million other things that are actually important.

Are some of those sex related? Yes. But not everything sex related where women are concerned is a bad at all while some things are absolutely terrible.

Magazine covers don't create or contribute to those problems. Consenting adults enjoying being turned on by images of other consenting adults is fine. Period. And no one should feel even a drop of guilt over being into that sort of thing.

[RBStevens]

186. I did not say that anyone should feel guilt about looking at

pictures of naked/semi-naked people.

And yes, I agree that all of the things you listed are important issues facing women. What I asked you though is if you thought that the sexual objectification of women in media of all kinds may underlie some or even all of those issues.

[phleshdef]

213. No not really because these are age old problems...

women have been treated like shit since the beginning of time

[RBStevens]

223. Alright, if women have been treated like shit since the beginning of time

as you say (and I pretty much agree with) what are some of the reasons why they have been treated like shit?

I posit that the age old practice of sexually objectifying and commodifying women has some bearing on that. What are some of the reasons, if not sexually objectifying and commodifying them, you have?

[btrflykng9]

187. +1

[Tumbulu]

177. And how do we improve the situation with the endless

commodification of our bodies and sex? The best work (imo) was written by Wendell Berry : "Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community: Eight Essays", it is so articulate (unlike me, I am sorry, I do not post often and seem to have written this in a clumsy way as well).

[phleshdef]

181. Commodification at what level? Some commodification is fine and shouldn't be ended.

As I just said to another poster... there is absolutely nothing wrong with consenting adults enjoying images of other consenting adults who they find to be attractive. Its part of our humanity.

If you are talking about sex trafficking, rape, sexual harassment, etc. Yes those are bad things. We should address those things. Magazine covers, legal porn, swimsuit photos, etc are NOT a problem and don't need to ever be ended.

[Tumbulu]

185. So, as a woman, you enjoy this as playful banter

and it gives you joy. OK that is fine, I asked for women to tell me what they liked about it. So thank you for answering.

[phleshdef]

200. I'm not a woman

I'm just getting sick of all this guilt tripping over things that people need not feel guilty over

[Tumbulu]

208. Well, then the question was not addressed to you

and sorry my questioning of this is making anyone feel guilty. Why would you feel guilty about some advertising executives continually trying to sell products by fostering images of objectification? It is not your fault. Read Wendell Berry's excellent essays on the matter "Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community: Eight Essays" .

[phleshdef]

210. I don't feel guilty, that's my point

maybe I misunderstood where you were going with this

[Squinch]

194. Do you post T&A photos in a place you share with women in real life?

And if this subject is not worth discussing, stop discussing it.

[phleshdef]

197. I don't post photos of anyone anywhere, what are you talking about?

This quote unquote discussion is all over the boards right now, it's getting to be irritating and I will voice my irritation whether you like it or not

[Squinch]

234. I don't mind whether you post or not, but YOU were saying that discussing

this takes away from the discussions of the "real" issues, and that discussing this is not a valuable or not use of our time. I would assume that would mean you feel that is not a valuable use of your own time either.

What I am talking about is this: would you think it would be appropriate for someone to post T&A pictures in a place that they share with women in real life? Especially in a place where people have asked them not to?

If you don't think that would be appropriate, how is this different?

This is not about looking at the opposite sex in a sexual way. This is about posting T&A photos in a place shared by men and women, and a place where people have expressed objections to it.

[phleshdef]

236. As long as its not against the rules, then its not against the rules.

People post tons of stuff here that others don't like to see... certain pieces of news, certain opinions.

[Squinch]

241. There are certain things that we all agree are not acceptable. Bigotry and homophobia are two.

And really what are bigotry and homophobia other than efforts to reduce others to a position of being less human, more object? That is the same as this.

I, and the hundreds of others who have voiced their objection to this, are saying that this would not be acceptable in any other venue shared by men and women who have regard for each other. Certainly not in any other venue that calls itself liberal. So why is it not against the rules?

[RBStevens]

244. +1

[Warren Stupidity]

232. Ah - the tone criticism. Yes if they would just keep to issues you don't find uncomfortable.

[RBStevens]

182. My mother falls under this statement

"without a man noticing you that you are not complete?"

She's a woman in her late 70s who has had more lesbian relationships than heterosexual and still she cares more that a random man pays attention to her than anything else. She takes great pains to get that sexualized attention.

I don't get it.

[Tumbulu]

188. See, I am nearly 60 and there some girls older

than I was (when I was a teen) who just really cared about being noticed. Me, and my friends? We wanted nothing to do with this sort of thing. And so, I wonder if this is generational in some way?

How interesting about your mom...... I have met a few women like your mom, most are of that age group. I do think it was conditioned into them at a very young age.

But what is the societal message now? Are we repeating this focus/imposing it on our young people?

[RBStevens]

203. There are always some girls, no matter the generation, who aren't interested

in generalized, sexualized male attention. In fact I think that most girls aren't until *culture* (not puberty) starts making an impact on their daily lives. And the culture now is decidedly even more brazenly sexually objectifying towards girls/women than at any time in the past.

According to my mom she never really cared for men/boys at all but she did want to be able to do the things they were allowed to do. It was also expected of her to get married and have kids so she did even though she wasn't real wild about either of those *occupations*. That's why I am so baffled that she cares so much about male attention. The upside (if we can call it that) is that at least these days girls don't necessarily have to believe that they have to get married and have kids in order to be, well, a woman.

[Tumbulu]

215. That is true, but this socializing effect is worrying to me

I guess I thought we were getting past this sort of thing.....

But I appear to be wrong.

Maybe it is my social circle, I just know very few women who are interested in attracting male attention. They mostly want to be respected.

[Squinch]

220. I wish I could find it now, but I can't remember where I read it and who posted

the great post about how the feminist advances of the 60's were ones that obviously benefitted men as much as women, namely readier and freer access to sex without the fear of pregnancy.

The post didn't say it this way, but my thought reading it was, "Yeah, but let's face it. In the 60's, women were still making all the sandwiches."

The advances that came after that, workplace equality and political equality and equality of opportunity, were ones that threatened men, that men didn't necessarily like. Suddenly they were in competition, and a way to reduce the effectiveness of a woman you are competing with is to suggest in as many ways as you can that the value of women is purely sexual. Keep the women from advancing where they compete with you and you never have to make the sandwiches. I think that is the passive aggressive impulse we are seeing here, so it's still in effect today.

So I think in the 60's, women thought that seeking the attention was the ultimate freedom. After that, keeping the attention in the appropriate places was crucial to the increases in our equality.

I see this same dichotomy between myself and my oldest sisters who are a half generation older than I am.

[Tumbulu]

231. Thanks, that is interesting and illuminating

and really explains it.

Thanks again.

[Squinch]

246. Thank YOU. And one more thought:

Keep in mind that before the 60's, before the pill and liberation, seeking attention, though a less overtly sexual attention, was the way that women could maximize the number of options they had in life, because their only options were defined by who they got to marry them.

So the vast majority of us here have been raised by mothers who sought attention as a way to maximize their opportunities in life, and we have all probably absorbed some of that into our psyches.

[Tumbulu]

257. So true again!

Yes, it has been a rapid time of change, all the more reason to be baffled, if not worried about these current ramifications of the images.

[Deep13]

199. Serious question, will you define "objectify" for us? If so, thanks.

It is hard for me to argue whether or not something is objectifying, and if so that it is definitely a bad thing, until we all have the same conceptual idea of what objectification really means. And I am asking for a definition that is not situation-specific.

My own understanding of the term comes from post-modern, feminist thought and especially subaltern concepts. The subject has agency and either works for his or her own benefit or else others work for the subject's benefit. Objects, as in grammar, respond to the agency of the subject and work for the benefit of the subject. Usually, the person doing the exploitation--in the Marxist sense of that term--is the subject, while the person being exploited is the object. I don't think it has anything to do with treating someone like an inanimate object, in the colloquial sense of that term.

[Tumbulu]

228. Well, I do not have the skills to do that.

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I am not a scholar, but a plant breeder and farmer. I hang out on DU because I should be out doing hard work and I want an excuse to sit in my little singlewide that is warm and dry and be still and read what people are thinking about all over the country and interact with them (however clumsily) and perhaps improve my writing skills. On DU there have been a bunch of baffling images that seem to me to be the typical objectifying stuff of our popular culture. People defend the images, people I know from other forums who I like have defended the images. One just left DU over this (I always enjoyed her contributions) -she had great things to say. But why, why this defense of these images?

And so, I have an ex sister in law, and I have known a few other women, now in their 70's who just need male attention, thrive on male attention, and this is why I asked the question. Is it one of these personality things? This enjoyment of these images, the not understanding that they are harmful to many women (to me it is REALLY OBVIOUS!) ? I am confused seeing women that I like not get this.

So, I am unable to explain what objectifying images are in words. But in a very general sense, they are images that depict women in sexualized fantasy poses displayed in public view normalizing for society the idea that women are primarily valued for how they provoke a physical reaction, rather than what they do, think or feel.

[Deep13]

303. Thanks. I appreciate it. ...

I'm doing so actual work right now, but I'll a meaningful reply when have some time. Meanwhile, perhaps someone else can chime in with her or his thoughts on it.

[Deep13]

325. What I don't want to do is to privilege sexuality.

Everything humans do is part of human nature and everything we do, including thoughts and beliefs, is natural for us. The need to control populations (which in pre-modern times meant to promote its growth) and to control the descent of wealth has made us a species preoccupied with sexual morals and ethics.

Many societies, including this one, are or have been patriarchal. Why? Men are bigger with proportionally more upper-body strength. Men can plow longer and harder than women, chop more wood, and, most importantly, fight other men. So, norms naturalized in pre-historic times are hard to shake off in modernity. There is, of course, one huge, glaring exception to the power a patriarchy can exert: only women can create the next generation of humans. Whatever else a patriarch can do, he cannot make a person. So, for patriarchy to rule, it must control women's bodies. One way it does that is with enforced modesty, a practice that women internalize as normal and virtuous for their gender.

The Abrahamic religions in particular have made this naturalized modesty into an art form. For men, honor means loyalty, courage, honesty, and self-control. For women, it means one thing: chastity except in the confines of marriage. That is obviously a form of masculine social control for the most primitive instinct of all: making sure one's own genetic material is reproduced rather than that of a rival. Part of that control is enforced modesty: making sure one's own wife or daughter is not unusually attractive to men. A head of a family may not be able to control the other men in the village, but he can control those who live in his house. So, the rules require modesty and any violation is not merely an offense against the patriarch, but a sin against the very masculine God.

So, when we complain that showing a lot of skin is objectifying, I can see the argument for it, but I can also see the argument that it liberates from traditional rules designed to ensure patriarchal control. Aren't we just using an undressed model for her body rather than her mind or character? Sure we are. But how is that different from any other job on earth? As one who rejects the Christian/Cartesian mind (or soul) vs. body dichotomy, I see it as a purely artificial distinction. Our character, morals, rationality etc. are all generated from our brains and are largely the result of a carefully regulated cocktail of hormones washing over it. Our brains and those chemicals are bodily, not supernatural. So if a man notices one woman's legs for their appearance, but another's for her ability to wait tables, it's exploitative either way. A construction worker is only used for his body, so what is the difference?

The real danger with the culture of sexual exploitation is that men will come to think of women as existing for their sexual gratification, or even worse, women will naturalize that expectation and perform accordingly. The problem with that is that men and women will see women as valuable only because of their sex appeal and will discount their value as humans. While commercial culture bears most of the responsibility for this, we men also have to learn to control our expectations and to understand that sexuality is only one part of any human's composition and not the only or perhaps even the chief reason others are valuable in our lives and society.

[Tumbulu]

326. thank you for the insight

I am not at your level, writing wise, but I would like to express a few things that came to my mind reading your well articulated post.

We have a dichotomy among women. I would say over half of us have been victims of male violence and that violence is generally associated with sex, or at least due to the fact that we are women, and violence was directed towards us for that reason only. The stats say one in four of us have been raped, but in my life, I have observed numbers much higher than that at least in terms of the fear of male violence. Perhaps that is because for every woman injured, a whole circle of other women learns about it, sees the perpetrator get away with it again and again, and thus the message is clear to us, that our safety does not matter, and it is the price of being attractive in any way to a man. It is our fault that we are somehow attractive.

Most men seem to have this idea that women enjoy being paid attention to by them, most men seem to think that women care a lot about what men think of them. I do think that there are some women like this, but not the lion's share, by any means. Most women that I know really want men to leave them be. They may want the men that they like or love to notice them or pay attention to them, but strange men? Most absolutely do not want this sort of attention. Too many of us have been hurt by men, we only want the one(s) that we have a good and or safe relationship to interact with us.

So, the idea that men should tell us that we should find all the objectifying images as OK, or fun, or whatever is plain out of bounds. It is not for men to tell us what we feel comfortable about. Clearly most women do not appreciate the endless objectifying of women in the media. We do not find it anything but oppressive and reminds us of the fact that we live limited lives due to this objectifying that somehow we are supposed to be finding liberating....liberated to be raped? Liberated from the
patriarchy? Liberated to be used up in 3 months as a porn star? All terrible sorrows for any of us to know about or watch happen to others.

I really do not think that most of the men understand how this almost constant objectifying effects all of us for the worse. And working as a laborer can indeed be exploitative if not properly compensated for money-wise, although this is why we have labor unions, etc. And being on a democratic site, I would imagine that we are all for the end of objectification and exploitation of all people. Not only for laborers, but for us all.

[polly7]

216. You're the one reducing these women to objects.

Do you need to do that to make you feel better? Does their beauty as a human being somehow make you feel inadequate? Does their right to do with their own body as they please make you angry?

Why?

Do you raid art museums with duct tape and markers to hide all the dirty bits? Do you track down the originators of nude female sculpts to hound and accuse of terrible things? Why do you do that?!?

[pnwmom]

253. Do you really not understand why many women don't want to see T & A photos on a

progressive website?

And that they don't view T & A photos on the SI cover as works of high art? But even if they were, this isn't an art site?

[polly7]

258. I was replying that ugly, insulting OP in kind.

Opposite ends of the ridiculous spectrum.

I said not one single word about anything being introduced here on DU. I wouldn't have brought that cover here, just for that reason you state. However, RiffRandal is one of my favourite people here and I don't believe she did it to cause this huge shit-fest.

Art doesn't have to be 'high art' to still be something people can appreciate for beauty alone. Accusing all of us who realize that, of being codependent, brainless teases too weak and brainwashed to make our own way in the world is probably one of the stupidest things I've seen here yet.

[pnwmom]

259. How could she not have realized -- and on some level have wanted --

the reaction that she would get?

[polly7]

260. I have no idea.

You asked ME a question, I answered it.

[RBStevens]

261. I didn't find the op to be ugly, insulting or ridiculous at all.

Where did the op call women "codependent, brainless teases"? I haven't seen those words from anyone but you and I, for one, find them insulting towards women in general.

[polly7]

262. Well good for you! Plenty of others did.

And guess what ......... they count too!! Novel thought, isn't it?

[RBStevens]

268. I've read this entire thread throughout the day

and I have not seen anyone but you characterize the op as "ugly" and "insulting" let alone saying that the op is accusing anyone of being "codependent, brainless teases". Again, all of those words were/are yours.

And I never said that anyone doesn't count. That's you projecting.

[polly7]

271. You implied that just because 'you' didn't get that from the OP,

no-one possibly could. I called bullshit.

The end.

[RBStevens]

276. I did not imply anything.

I simply stated that I didn't take from it what you did and then went on to say that I found your choice to characterize the op as implying that women are "codependent, brainless teases" was insulting to women in general.

Do you think that the op's actual words are more ugly and insulting than the phrase you attributed to them?

[Tumbulu]

263. Curious about why you find my op insulting

and sorry that it upset you.

And you honestly think they made that cover to show how beautiful women's bodies are?

[polly7]

265. I've spelled out why, twice now.

It upset me most because I saw that it upset others, and I'm so beyond sick and tired of women you don't agree with being accused of your ugly crap.

Yes, I honestly think beautiful women are photographed, sculpted and painted to show beauty.

[Tumbulu]

270. So what is this "ugly crap"

you seem to be reading into my posts.

Sorry, many above have articulated the issue far more clearly than I have.

And yes women and men and most everything is beautiful. But imo portraying women as sex objects is not about beauty.

Hence my original question.

[polly7]

273. Your OP ....

that ugly crap.

Nice that we can all have opinions, right? Too bad though that some are flamed for them.

And I feel sorry for you if you think that beautiful pictures of women are only viewed 'for sex'.

[Tumbulu]

278. You seem to misunderstand me a bit

There are plenty of beautiful pictures of women and all humans for that matter. I am wondering how you find provocative images designed to create a sexual response in particular, vs simply beautiful, to be artistic. Seriously, you cannot see a difference? If you cannot see a difference and do not find these images objectifying, then why are you in this discussion?

[polly7]

279. Well there ya go ...

I don't find simple pictures of women on a beach designed to create a sexual response. Seriously. I'm in this discussion because I found your OP insulting, condescending and stupid. Is that alright?

[Tumbulu]

282. That SI cover looked like typical women on a beach to you?

if so then the sexualization of women must be completely normalized for you and so then again, you are not helping me understand this at all.

I am sorry that you think I am stupid. I work hard, support myself and try not to exploit anyone or anything, which on a farm is a pretty tall order. But I guess I am stupid for trying.

I have known a few wonderful women who simply adore having men pay attention to them. I do not understand it at all, hence my question.

Sorry to not live up to your idea of DU's IQ standards.

[polly7]

283. EXACTLY like typical women on a beach, to me.

I never said 'you' were stupid, don't twist things, k?

[RBStevens]

294. No, you said her words are "stupid" amongst other things.

Are we supposed to separate her words and their meaning from her intellect?

[polly7]

297. I said the OP slamming other women for not believing as she does was

'insulting, condescending and stupid'.

You're very good at separating words - which is why you didn't include my whole quote.

No, there's a difference between posting something someone else considers stupid, and being stupid. But keep on trying with that ....

[RBStevens]

298. Is this enough of a whole quote -

"I'm in this discussion because I found your OP insulting, condescending and stupid. Is that alright?"

Again, are we supposed to separate a person's actual words from their intellect?

[polly7]

299. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck what you do.

[RBStevens]

301. Your response doesn't make sense to me. I supplied the full quote

I think (?) and asked the same question again - are we supposed to separate a person's actual words from their intellect?

Is it okay to call a person's words "stupid" and at the same time maintain that you have not called *them* stupid?

[mimi85]

217. I absolutely cannot

believe this thread is still going. Please, please give it a rest! It's become a giant bore. I feel like Gloria Steinem has taken over DU. I don't agree with the ridiculous stuff going on ala Miley C., but on the other hand humans will be humans. These things are cyclical. Look at the 50s compared to the late 60s-mid 70s.

It seems as though every other thread is about this lately. What started it, the SI cover? Big f'in deal as Joe would say.

[B Calm]

222. What do you think of Miley Cyrus?

[Tumbulu]

240. I feel sad for her

I think she is a child actress who currently believes that she is attaining freedom from what bound her before, only getting trapped into a new web that is just as predictable.

[RBStevens]

243. I feel sad for her too.

She has been sold first as a little girl and now as a sexualized young woman.

Does she have actual talent? Sure, but that's not what's really being marketed at this point.

[Tumbulu]

252. so true nt

[HockeyMom]

237. Married 40 years

I am ME (Democrat) and he is HE (Republican). We are NOT one flesh and do not ever attempt to tell me we are. It is called COMPROMISE. He goes his way and I go mine when it does not involve the "us" part of our marriage. When that happens, we reach an understanding which is beneficial to both of us.

As a young woman, I fought these battles; unmarried and married. I still have a horse in this battle since I have only daughters; straight and gay. On both fronts I realize that there are some who would want to take away BOTH their CIVIL RIGHTS. I will continue to fight, and I have with gay marriage. However, my straight daughter, even married herself, has a lot to loose with reproductive freedom loses. I know for a fact that she does not want to be breeding mare because she has a ring on her finger.

As long as I am living and breathing, I will continue to fight as I did in my youth. HOWEVER, we older women cannot do this ourselves and all alone. Our daughters and their sisters must take up the reins and fight also.

[LWolf]

254. That's a coincidence.

I was just thinking about this topic this morning, as I got ready to leave the house.

It started as I reached for a bra, mentally groaning, stretching my chronically aching, inflamed back and tight shoulders, and wishing again that I'd grown up flat chested instead of a triple D, regardless of how thin, or not, the rest of me might be. I remembered the knowledge, from about age 11, that I'd never have trouble attracting male attention, and that other girls were envious. I remembered learning, over the years, what a double-edged sword that was, and that I couldn't ever expect males to be interested in me as a person rather than an object. I remembered the years learning to hide, to blend in, to be unnoticeable and unmemorable so that kind of attention would be directed elsewhere. I thought about the relief it was to become "too old" to attract sexual attention.

I remembered being raised by a wonderful mom who was attracted to, and addicted to attracting, "bad" boys, and how truly BAD they were, and having to negotiate the environment with them in it. I remembered growing up always feeling inadequate, because my tomboy self was never "pretty" nor "girlie" enough for her. I thought about how, still, when I'm 53, she still constantly comments on what I look like, what I'm wearing, my weight, etc., etc., etc., and how, still, in her mid-70s, she is still overly (to me) obsessed with what SHE looks like.

I thought about the way she was raised, the lack of love and total lack of confidence and esteem she grew up with, that she learned to value herself when boys and then men valued her for something...something that was never her otherwise intelligent intellect or her heart and soul. I forgave her, and by extension, all of my sisters across the planet who feel that they need a man to validate them, because I understand. I understand where it comes from, I understand what it feels like, and I understand that I'm unusual in being able to break that pattern in my own life. I'm thankful that I had 2 sons and no daughters to pass that conditioning on to; that my sons grew up expecting the women around them to be whole people, and that, as adults, they treat women that way.

We're all in different places on the continuum. It's all interconnected, and social/cultural/gender evolution is a complex process.

[Tumbulu]

267. Thank you LWolf,

what a wonderful writer you are, thank you for putting into words so well the issues so many of us struggled with.

I have a young daughter and she is being bombarded with all this craziness. I, like you had a mom always wanting me to dress up and "put on a little lipstick", etc, as though I wanted anyone to look at me in that way.

[LWolf]

313. You're welcome.

[RBStevens]

269. Well said. Thank you.

[Butterbean]

264. What is your personal definition of objectification, for this specific post?

As in, what do YOU consider objectification? I need clear definitions and boundaries here if I'm going to even attempt to answer this. Yes, I'm a woman.

[Tumbulu]

274. I answered that in reply 228

I never see anyone cut and paste their previous reply's so I am following that format.

Thanks.

[Butterbean]

287. Hmm. Okay.

Here's what I think, then. I think that adult women who voluntarily choose careers where their main job description is objectification (read: Kate Upton, Kim Kardashian, et al) should be free to make that choice, and that choice should not be condemned. They are grown women and are free to do with their bodies what they wish.

I enjoy looking at pictures of half naked women sometimes, because I find them sexually stimulating and I also find the female form gorgeous. I identify as heterosexual and have never had a female partner, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the appeal of the female form. As for makeup and all that, well, again, I enjoy wearing makeup sometimes, simply because I enjoy makeup. It hasn't got anything to do with making myself more attractive for males (happily married for 18 years now), I just wear it because I feel more attractive in my own skin with it on sometimes. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As for me thinking it's a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, well, for me it's neither. It's not good or bad, it simply is. Women being forced into being objectified is always bad. Women choosing it? Not bad. If they choose it and it is truly what they want, then so be it.

I have a question for YOU. What are your attitudes toward sex in general? Do you think it's okay if women enjoy being tied up during sex? What about if women enjoy watching porn? What about if a woman wants to be a prostitute where it's legal, say in a country like Amsterdam? Do you think it's okay for a woman to have multiple sex partners at once and enjoy sex for the sake of sex and nothing more?

I ask this because my mother shares some attitudes like yours (her favorite shirt when I was growing up had the phrase "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" on it, and she has shunned makeup her entire life), but she is very sexually repressed and views sex as filthy, dirty, and as something to be used as currency. She is a self proclaimed liberal, yet she is the first to condemn anyone for having sex outside of or before marriage, cohabitating, or out of wedlock childbirth. It's odd. She has an almost toxic view of sex, and of men as well. I have to constantly remind her not to male-bash in front of her male grandsons. She is not speaking to my sister because my sister divorced her husband after he marital-raped her. My mother said, "there are just some things women learn to deal with" when my sister told my mother this was her reason for wanting a divorce. To my mother, my sister getting a divorce is the biggest shame of her life. I cannot wrap my head around it. My mom screams about equal rights and feminism, yet then turns around and male-bashes and looks down her nose at other people's sex lives if they don't match up with what she deems appropriate. The mind boggles.

I am trying to understand your point of view as much as you are trying to understand mine. My basic view is very third wave, I guess, in that I don't have a problem with porn, and I think if a woman wants to be very sexually provocative/evocative and get paid for it, then that's her right and she should not be condemned. Men are objectified too (I will practically trip over myself to see a picture of a scantily clad Alexander Skarsgard), but I rarely hear much about that. I dunno, I guess I just see things differently because I'm from a different generation, and because my mother's warped viewpoints have very much affected me as well.

BTW, I really hope none of this gets you angry/upset/etc.. I was not trying to be snarky, mean, or anything but bluntly honest in this reply. There is no intended malice here. Just had to get that out upfront, as I have seen one too many times in hot button discussions like this people on this board getting very upset when often it was just a misinterpretation of tone.

[Tumbulu]

288. Thanks or writing so much to think about

And yes, there is this idea that somehow if one is against these sorts of depictions of women that one is against sex.

Which could not be farther from the truth. I do not care to go into details about my sex life, but I have been what used to be called a "free spirit". I love people and expressed it physically and it is actually because of this that I object so much to the commodification of it. And the porn industry and sex industry absolutely infuriate me since they are certainly not promoting anything about love or magic, they promote money and using others to make money in any way conceivable. And tricking people, male and female into thinking that sex is a sport or a way to use or control someone else. Not my thing at all.

So, if someone chooses to be objectified as a career, it is not so much my business. But the popularizing of the objectification, the normalizing of it, that is where the trouble for me begins, because it is the message given to the youth. This sort of souless sex that is about everything that I loath (being controlled, being reduced to what your body looks like rather than who you are) is what I find myself puzzled by and concerned about.

[Butterbean]

289. All excellent points, and ones that I agree with actually.

Which I guess makes me a hypocrite, or just really confused. Hell, I don't know. So much stuff falls into the "gray area" part of my moral compass that it's really hard for me to pin stuff down and say I absolutely support or oppose this or that 100% of the time.

Yeah, it is really disturbing how youth of today (God shoot me...I used that phrase, "youth of today..." I'm so old...) ARE being desensitized. It's sort of like the desensitization to violence that I think comes with some of the violent video games and hollywood movies.

It's definitely a fine line to walk, and for me, I'm not sure where that line really falls. On the one hand, I get what you're saying absolutely and think you're right. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong, per se, with stuff like the SI swimsuit issue. I mean, whatever blows your skirt up...go for it.

Muddy waters, indeed.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

266. I'm not one of those women who thinks objectifying women is good

However, let me say one thing...

First, while it is true that some women (and a lot of them very young - 18, 19, etc) have bought into the heavily-marketed idea that in order to be thought of as worthwhile women they have to appear half-undressed, behave like sexual clowns, and follow the dictates of the media (which basically promotes the idea that women are pieces of sexual meat), we have to be aware that not all women buy into this shit, and it is shit.

Second, if we are to judge all women by the behavior of the worst ones (porn actresses, models for Victoria's Secret, and those humping one another - drunk - on the dance floor), we could just as easily judge all men by the behavior of the worst males (ones that rape, ones that hit, ones that are drug addicts), and so on. We could generalize till we're blue in the face, couldn't we?

Some men feel that it's "okay" to objectify all women and to post photos that objectify women, simply because there are some women out there desperately seeking male attention, or obtaining monetary compensation (porn, soft porn, etc.) by being the media's ideal and darling of the female sexual clown they (the media) adore to play up.

[Tumbulu]

275. Thanks very good points nt

[Skittles]

286. worthy of its own thread

you spell it out nicely

[Sarah Ibarruri]

302. Thank you! Maybe I'll post it again somewhere. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

318. **********^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*********************

thank you, Sarah.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

319. Thank you! nt

[840high]

290. Trash.

[Katashi_itto]

311. Trash Thread

[alp227]

323. Good intentions, shitty loaded "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Loaded_language#Loaded_questions

And i think these photos would be less objectifying if Americans knew what healthy sexuality IS. But companies exploit selling sex as a sin thanks to America purity culture and abstinence education. That's why we can't have nice things in our intellectually bankrupt nation.