News:

"Wings and a Prayer [L-E]"
Congratulations OfferedToEros & Random for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Objectification and Gender Roles

Started by Sheoldred, October 05, 2014, 04:02:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sheoldred

Heya! I'd really like somebody more experienced to give me their more informed opinion on this particular topic by either answering my questions, speaking of their own experience if they're willing to impart with such information, or just generally making an informative post on the topic. And as a disclaimer, please try not to get mad if what I write in this OP might seem offensive to you. I'm merely seeking to mend my outlooks on life, in case they're somehow wrong, presumptuous or delusional, through civil conversation. We all come from different walks of life and have been exposed to different views, different information. So without further adue...



Where does the line between objectification and desire lie, exactly? It's only natural to be attracted to a female's(or male's) looks. Is it objectification if I'm attracted to women I see on the streets purely based on their looks and body language? I've had absolutely no chance of knowing what they are actually like - what education they have, their principles, their ideals, their status and so forth.

Is there something wrong with preferring women to be feminine? By this I mean mostly clothing, make-up, body language and other various mannerisms, I don't personally care if the woman has a more successful career and earns more money. I don't think there's anything bad about it when women prefer to wear gender-neutral clothes or clothes mostly worn by men and almost never bother with make-up but chances are, when I'm out to look for a girlfriend or mate or however you'd like to call it, I will inevitably be attracted to women that 'pretty themselves up'. I am more likely to walk up to them and compliment them, if it comes to that. I like stockings. I like lingerie.

But according to some feminists I'm an evil man for doing so because I support the objectification of women and that must be the root of all problems women struggle with these days, like lower salaries, prostitution, obsession with weight, low self-esteem, and whatever else. Because often enough women that don't feel like being 'fake' so to speak feel left out because all the men go for the 'fake' ones with fake tits and cleavage, as they put it. Or have I understood them wrong?

kylie

      I think it's a good question and people grapple with it a lot, often quietly or sometimes quite messily.

I'm tempted but it's the sort of thing I might tend to ramble about and I'm not sure my own phrasing would be very elegant.  (And I'm sleepy.)

      So instead, for starters...  See if this piece from "Everyday Feminism" helps a bit?  There is a working summary definition there (quoted below), but some of the other parts may be interesting too.

Quote
The Difference Between Sexual Objectification and Sexual Desire

Sexual objectification and sexual desire are two different things.

Sexual desire and attraction is a normal and natural part of life. It involves two (or more) people stating their desire for one another and consenting to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.

So in the case of someone “using” the other for consensual sex, it’s not true objectification because both parties have agreed (hopefully!) to engage in the act.

Sexual objectification, however, puts one person in the role of subject and the other person in the role of object. In heterosexual coupled relationships, these roles are usually assigned to the man and woman, respectively.

Sexual objectification requires that one person choose what they want sexually and the other person is required to perform to their standards.
     

Melusine

If you desire women and treat them as human beings with dignity, without thinking of them just as walking vaginas for you to fuck, then I think you're pretty clear of objectification. As you said, it's natural for people to be attracted to other people's looks, especially on the street when you can't really perceive the other person's personality. You're admiring them aesthetically. Of course, if one's "admiration" extends to catcalling and comments about the woman's body, then there's a problem.

There's nothing wrong with having a "type", as long as you're not trying to claim that your type is somehow the only model women should aspire to be. If you like polished women, more power to you! Just accept this as a personal preference (which you are doing), not something that every woman should do.

Feminists complain about make up and polish because in most cases (media, magazines) it's the only model of woman that's allowed, otherwise she's laughable and ugly. The plain girl has to get a makeover to snag her guy. Women in movies and shows are shown with perfect skin, hair and body, which understandably makes the rest of us who live in the real world quite insecure. And something that's just as infuriating; society shows us this beauty ideal that can only be achieved through makeup (if not outright photoshop), and then makes fun of us for our frivolous pursuit of beautifying ourselves. There's the model of the "unique" girl, who isn't like other girls with their silly girly stuff like fashion and makeup, which is pushed pretty hard by some portions of society. That's what feminists are rebelling against.

I'm a (quite hardcore) feminist, and I don't think you're evil for preferring makeup and femininity on women. From what you've written, that's just your personal preference, which is fine in my opinion. Some guys like sporty girls, some guys like girly girls, some guys like hairy bears. It takes all types to make a world.

Valthazar

#3
I think Melusine is very accurate on the true feminist argument of this situation.

As a man, I think the most important thing is to be aware of your principles and values.  Are you intending to downplay a woman's worth as a human being?  Are you suggesting that women who are not physically attractive in your eyes are less of a human being?  If the answer is "No" to these two questions, then you are certainly not objectifying her.

At the same time, you will surely get some people (due to a flawed understanding of feminism), who will criticize you for looking at, or being drawn to very attractive women.  In these situations, just remember your fundamental values as I said above.  You are not intending to devalue her as a human being, so don't feel that you need to second guess yourself.

Since you were open to personal experiences, my ex really enjoyed fashion and make up, and she mentioned that she often felt more objectified around other women than she did around men.  At first I thought this was because there was a subconscious "competition" among women based on looks, but ironically, she seemed to receive the most vitriol from the women who did not place much emphasis on their appearances and clothing.  I don't know if this was because they perceived her actions as her being oppositional to their feminist views, or if this was because of some other factor. 

I guess my point is that each woman (and man) has different narrative and frame of reference to drawn on during these situations.  Some women (like my ex) love nothing more than to receive a compliment from a man when they are out and about, while other women will be extremely put off by this.  So long as your intentions are genuine, don't worry about the reaction you elicit in these conversational situations.

Sheoldred

QuoteIf you desire women and treat them as human beings with dignity, without thinking of them just as walking vaginas for you to fuck, then I think you're pretty clear of objectification. As you said, it's natural for people to be attracted to other people's looks, especially on the street when you can't really perceive the other person's personality. You're admiring them aesthetically. Of course, if one's "admiration" extends to catcalling and comments about the woman's body, then there's a problem.

It is something I am certainly striving for. However, I cannot claim that I've always been fair towards women. In retrospect, it can often be a fairly slippery slope, and many men don't even notice that they might be crossing the line from my personal experience. For example, would you say men bragging how many women they've slept with would be sexist? It implies a belief that a man's worth could be determined by the amount of females he has 'conquered' and mated with, which pertains to our primitive nature, the aim of which is to find as many mates as possible and conceive as much offspring as possible to ensure survival of the species as a whole as well as carry on one's personal genes. But do such notions have place in our contemporary society? On the other hand women are looked down upon as sluts if they 'conquer' many men. It's a classic double standard that has been discussed a lot, I'd reckon.

Do you think the media is responsible for making men less conscious of how they treat women? It isn't very uncommon to hear a woman crying about her ex or her current mate of treating her unfairly in one way or another, whether by cheating on her or whatever else she might find offensive. Basically taking her for granted and thinking that 'ah, she'll forgive me anyway, no biggie'.

And that leads me to another question. In the more unsavoury parts of the internet, you may often witness men insulting each-other by calling each-other 'virgins' or something similar to that. Basically, the point of the insult is to indicate that the person is incapable of attracting a mate of the opposite sex, and in most cases this insult is directed towards men. But do you think this could possibly be indirectly sexist towards women? Because in a way, the woman is indirectly the object that the man has to use, as the subject, in order to fulfill himself as a man and be respected by his peers. I got that from the nice article Kylie linked.


QuoteThere's nothing wrong with having a "type", as long as you're not trying to claim that your type is somehow the only model women should aspire to be. If you like polished women, more power to you! Just accept this as a personal preference (which you are doing), not something that every woman should do.

Oh, certainly. Nothing wrong with a woman who decides to completely neglect trying to attract the opposite sex  entirely and focuses on her studies entirely, in order to become a doctor or a physicist. If I find some girl more attractive and desirable than another it certainly does not make her any better than other women, at least not by the grace of my desire for her alone, which is a completely subjective factor :P.

Quote
Feminists complain about make up and polish because in most cases (media, magazines) it's the only model of woman that's allowed, otherwise she's laughable and ugly. The plain girl has to get a makeover to snag her guy. Women in movies and shows are shown with perfect skin, hair and body, which understandably makes the rest of us who live in the real world quite insecure.

But it does so to men too, doesn't it? In fact I'd argue that men have it even worse but of course I might be biased here, being male, so take this with a grain of salt. Basically, as a male, the kind of oppression I've felt lies in the notion that in order to be a man I have to be able to fix cars, own one too, know how to fix anything, in fact, be competitive and outgoing(being a shy guy can easily get you stigmatized and stereotyped), always take initiative, not show emotion. It's ok for a woman to cry but when you cry as a guy you suddenly lose the respect of your peers.

Psychology says that crying is a mechanism babies and children in general use in order to give a sign they desperately need something, be it sustenance, warmth, emotional support or whatever else, aside from the 'cleansing' effect. I have a feeling that the society in general is more forgiving towards women who cry and seek support from her peers, but men are encouraged to be more independent, more self-sufficient. A guy hugging his guy friend and crying his eyes out is unacceptable and 'weird'. For women that's normal. You could see it both ways. That women are generally seen as the 'weaker' and more emotional sex and thus its sexist against women. But countless women have used this to their advantage too. You often hear of scandals where women win in courts simply by pretending to be the victim. I don't see any advantage here for men, on the other hand. Only for those who can truly meet expectations and be considered the 'alphas'.

Not to mention Hollywood movies tend to portray male protagonists as tall, handsome and fit too, with perfect hair. Just like your average heroine from a romantic movie doesn't look like your average woman in real life, neither does the average guy look like the hollywood hunks who are in fact often paid and provided with more than enough money to get personal trainers, nutritionists and so forth. Besides the looks, the men in movies are shown as very confident and successful. The classic example would be James Bond.

And I don't want to come off as bitter but I do have a feeling many women tend to have unreasonably high standards, and its possible they do so for the very same reasons men prefer the prettier girls. Because the way media tends to idolize these perfect examples of both sexes.

QuoteAs a man, I think the most important thing is to be aware of your principles and values.

That's worth quoting :P.

QuoteSince you were open to personal experiences, my ex really enjoyed fashion and make up, and she mentioned that she often felt more objectified around other women than she did around men.  At first I thought this was because there was a subconscious "competition" among women based on looks, but ironically, she seemed to receive the most vitriol from the women who did not place much emphasis on their appearances and clothing.  I don't know if this was because they perceived her actions as her being oppositional to their feminist views, or if this was because of some other factor.

I've heard similar stories before. Could it be that these women feel so inferior that they think that even wearing make-up and wearing pretty dresses or skirts wouldn't make them as pretty as the more naturally beautiful women who do the same, still ending up bitter and less preferred by men? Thus they hide their insecurity by trying to claim that make-up and dresses are bullshit that men use to manipulate women. Sort of how homophobic men hate on homosexuals because they're afraid of their own hidden attraction. A defensive mechanism of sorts, that's actually self-destructive and debasing.



consortium11

Quote from: kylie on October 05, 2014, 04:22:01 PM
So instead, for starters...  See if this piece from "Everyday Feminism" helps a bit?  There is a working summary definition there (quoted below), but some of the other parts may be interesting too.

I'm not really a fan of the definition used by Everyday Feminism and combining it with the "sexual objectification is always bad position" because it puts the example Sheoldred mentioned ("Is it objectification if I'm attracted to women I see on the streets purely based on their looks and body language?") squarely into the "sexual objectification" category... and sexual objectification is bad. In that case there is clearly an observer (Sheoldred) and an object (the person he finds attractive) and there is no way to escape that, thus sexual objectification. If you find someone attractive you are sexually objectifying them... you are viewing them as a sexual object.

But here's a point... and it's one the Everyday Feminism article touches on but doesn't go the whole way with... is sexual objectification in-and-of itself bad?

Let's start by pointing out a certain incoherence in the Everyday Feminism definition. Sexual desire requires two (or more) parties stating their desire before consensually acting on it.

But if sexual desire only appears once both parties state it, then what desire are they stating?

And unless in a moment of ludicrous coincidence the two (or more) parties see each other at the exact same moment and immediately state their desire at the exact same time then both have been sexually objectifying the other up to that point.

Is that wrong?

Sexual objectification is, at its heart, viewing another as a sexual object. If I see someone and consider them attractive I am self-evidently doing that. I'm still doing that even if I know and take into account their personality, history, mindset, principles etc etc and still find them attractive... I'm still viewing them as a sexual object. I don't think that's wrong... I think it's not only natural but, in-and-of-itself good... without viewing someone as a sexual object then sex becomes a mechanical procreation exercise.

But that doesn't mean sexual objectification doesn't come with a whole load of issues.

One is mentioned in the Everyday Feminism article (and is largely the basis for it); the gendered nature of sexual objectification and the position it has in our culture. I used the example of this comic cover in an earlier thread on objectification



You can argue that Sentry (the beefy character in the middle of the cover) is objectified; he's standing tall and mighty with a rippling chest and all his well defined muscles being easily (and improbably) visible through his outfit. But, objectified or not, he's still standing tall and mighty... he's bold, powerful, strong. The two female characters? As I said at the time:

QuoteWell, Natasha is giving us the classic "show your bum while looking over your shoulder so there's a flash of boob" pose which basically every female character ends up stuck in at least once and Tigra is giving us her best "I'm a filthy sex kitten... meow!" pose and look.

The male character's pose may be objectified but it also speaks to something else. The other two? Not so much. That's something I'll touch on later.

That type of presentation is far from rare in comics... you'll find hundred of examples of female comic books characters getting the objectification treatment that their male counterparts don't (just look at the outfits each wear for example). The Everyday Feminism article details the issues in the wider world of this quite well.

The second issue... and in my mind the main one... is when sexual objectification goes from thinking of someone as a sexual object and thinking of them as only being a sexual object. That's why I mentioned the differences in the poses above; the male character may be objectified but there are other elements to his pose; the two female characters are only objectified. If I attend a lecture by an expert in something and think (s)he is attractive then it may be sexual objectification but that's fine... the issue is when I stop thinking of them as an expert and only think of them as a sexual object. The issue is when I focus on them only as a sexual object and not as anything else.

In essence for me the issue (using the definition above) isn't with sexually objectifying someone. It's with only sexually objectifying someone. It's finding someone attractive (and I should stress that isn't limited to just their body, it also includes their personality) and viewing that as the sum total of that person... someone who is sexually attractive to me. It's viewing them as only being a sex object, of ignoring everything else about them. And where it becomes a huge issue is when the logic in ones head twists to say that because they've caused a sexual reaction in me they want me to put that reaction onto them.

Valthazar

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PMI've heard similar stories before. Could it be that these women feel so inferior that they think that even wearing make-up and wearing pretty dresses or skirts wouldn't make them as pretty as the more naturally beautiful women who do the same, still ending up bitter and less preferred by men? Thus they hide their insecurity by trying to claim that make-up and dresses are bullshit that men use to manipulate women. Sort of how homophobic men hate on homosexuals because they're afraid of their own hidden attraction. A defensive mechanism of sorts, that's actually self-destructive and debasing.

This issue is perhaps more emblematic of how women themselves share such diversity of thought on issues like objectification.

If you look at 2nd wave feminism, one of the main reasons it made such social progress was due to the unanimity of opinion among women.  For the most part, the vast majority of progressive women in the 60s and 70s (staying away from a discussion on race or social class) wanted the same things: being able to have jobs and careers of their own, having control over their bodies, and reducing harrassment/discrimination - among other issues.  3rd wave feminism, while certainly equal in merit, lacks the same cohesion, and often faces criticism from 2nd wave feminists.  See here for more information.

As an example, from a functional point of view, SlutWalks are a very important cause in reminding people that it doesn't matter how a woman dresses or acts, but that sexual assault can happen to anyone.  This is something all feminists can agree on.  However, there is significant division between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists on the success and long-term ramifications of actively embracing words like slut, rather than condemning its use.  Both views represent "feminism" yet there lacks cohesion.

As such, women opposed to make-up and fashion are equally as "feminist" as those women who choose to doll themselves up and embrace their "slut" image.  However, each school of thought tends to feel that 'their' philosophy is the accurate one, which often hurts the feminist movement as a whole.  In fact, what motivated you to make this thread (expressing confusion/division over how people perceive objectification) is likely rooted in differing values within feminism itself.

kylie

#7
Quote from: consortium11 on October 05, 2014, 08:57:07 PM
I'm not really a fan of the definition used by Everyday Feminism and combining it with the "sexual objectification is always bad position" because it puts the example Sheoldred mentioned ("Is it objectification if I'm attracted to women I see on the streets purely based on their looks and body language?") squarely into the "sexual objectification" category...
I scanned through the article again and I did not find that particular example you raise.  So I think it would be up to you to spell out at more length how their definition must interpreted and deployed to be so "firm" on that.  I can imagine, with some work, a way you might interpret it that way.  But I'm inclined to think (maybe and hopefully) that's not really what the author intended.  I don't see that what you say in this part must follow from the contours of the short discussion she gave.

     Personally I'm not wedded to the website, but for a relatively quick explanation, I'd say it's not bad and at the same time it seems broadly principled with a focus on intent and consequence, rather than generalizing vaguely about situations.  At the same time I would be inclined to agree that there are probably a few traces of what Val mentioned -- that is, a few different (and sometimes conflicting) ideologies that sometimes inform various feminisms (or strains of feminism if you prefer). 

      But here, I think maybe you're being a little oversensitive about stuff they didn't spend time to really analyze.  It's a short piece and I don't see the actual article stating an intent to conclude all that you are concluding.

Quote
... and sexual objectification is bad. In that case there is clearly an observer (Sheoldred) and an object (the person he finds attractive) and there is no way to escape that, thus sexual objectification. If you find someone attractive you are sexually objectifying them... you are viewing them as a sexual object.

     While I realize some people speak like this, and a few even overgeneralize it rather shotgun style...  I don't think this is built into the heart of that definition quite as you suggest.  To me, the heart of the definition revolves more around conceptualizing what is basically consensual, and what is more a true representation of self or openness to allowing true representations onto the playing field (i.e. who gets to go to work or walk on the street at all -- without being excluded or picked on over stereotyped "attractiveness.")

     Here, you are only focusing on sexual desire and you are starting from your own point of view.  And I think what is eating you there, is that if you assume your point of view is the common one, and if you assume they are demanding equal access for every female body to every man's date card on any given day...  Then I suppose, the article definition might come across more as placing the desires of those women who are not conventionally made up -- say, desires to get a date etc. -- somehow 'above' the preferences of those men for conventional feminine performance in the looks field.  However, they have not really stated such in the article.  To be sure, I guess we would have to ask for comment specifically about this sort of scenario -- it's not really raised as a model case. 

     I think their intent with "subject" and "object" is not really to ban gazing and viewing to suit simple desire.  But rather to encourage people to think more about how desire is often itself nurtured, shaped -- even socially limited as to what desires will be allowed to be mentioned -- for many people by convention, and often regardless of personal preference.  And moreover, to think about how certain desires are packaged into "types" of people who can have more power systemically:  Not simply in gazing as a matter of attraction, but more in controlling some people and driving others way from dating and from public life more generally at the same time.

Quote
But here's a point... and it's one the Everyday Feminism article touches on but doesn't go the whole way with... is sexual objectification in-and-of itself bad?
You said above you had already concluded they modeled it as if it always were.  Though this could also be taken as some tacit admission that they haven't talked much about the stuff you have been saying was so obvious as to what you claim to be 'certain' what the author intended. 

     Feminists often use the term like we generally use the word rape, yes.  Fine.  I guess we can agree there.  But to your question?  I don't feel that all situations with objects need to be placed under their concept of sexual objectification.

     Sometimes people do overshoot.  There are certainly some feminist analyses I take great issue with, in small or large part.   But to me that is a problem with the analysis.  It's not necessarily a crisis for this working definition.  Though I do imagine from a certain angle, linguistically, it could be possible to draw out the questions you raise until it feels like any fully positive or negative words could be totally unworkable in life.  We might also then have to constantly second guess words like consent, and rape, and idealism completely too.  I'm not sure it helps us, on the whole, to go that far. 

Quote
Let's start by pointing out a certain incoherence in the Everyday Feminism definition. Sexual desire requires two (or more) parties stating their desire before consensually acting on it.
Perhaps they could have gone without "two or more," or taken some time to explain why they are interested in that particular version here.  I think it makes more sense if we assume the article was initially concerned with a particular form of objectification (call it exploitation, if changing the word a mite helps you any).  It makes it easier to show the principle when people assume the ideal case of consent involves both parties.  But with a little imagination, you could apply much the same principle to matters of sexual desire generally. 

    The point isn't just who asks first or who looks at who first.  It's more a question for whoever is acting: How much of what the other person does, do I imagine is what they would prefer (or at least, are very happy to settle for) -- and how much do I wonder if they might not be into it at all, but it's work they do because they feel at some level they have to do it to have opportunities or perhaps simply to be accepted at all?  The nagging thing for feminism on the social theory side is, many of those things people "have" to do pile up as stuff women often enough do not like or find in their interest, no matter that many are quite good at gaming it or going through the motions -- and women as a group do often suffer both sexually and in public life if they don't do (or are even spoken of as a "type" who probably wouldn't do) many of those things.

And this also can be one perspective from which some women who do not present as conventionally feminine, may sometimes come out as highly critical of women who do seem to play that game more devotedly.

( As to who gets to gaze, it's more of a problem for feminism generally that women are somewhat practically forced to assume a passive and decorative role, not because they may enjoy pretty things or fashion but because they want to get a job in many companies serving the public, and to go about life outside the door without being mocked.  And there it becomes more of an issue whether it's usually, so-called "normally" the man who is placed in the role in the gazer and the asker and the initiator...  But that's a somewhat different discussion. ) 
 
Quote
But if sexual desire only appears once both parties state it, then what desire are they stating?

And unless in a moment of ludicrous coincidence the two (or more) parties see each other at the exact same moment and immediately state their desire at the exact same time then both have been sexually objectifying the other up to that point.

      I suppose you have a certain point in there.  But then, so does Ridgway.  I think her idea of desire is a more socially motivated one.  You strike me as using a model of desire where it's sort of organic and spontaneous.  To put it another way, I wonder if she would say, be interested in more direct negotiation of how things are going to be done, whether on the street or in the bedroom.  "Can we sit down and talk about how this is going to be played now, between us, to make it all more fun?"  Whereas you seem to me to implicitly question whether anything that must be verbalized or negotiated (or even materially organized over time and through work and cooperation), can actually be spoken of as "desired."  And it goes round and round, because I would say -- and I think she would -- that many of the things we do with others (yes, granted they feel spontaneous and sometimes even one-sided to start) are also scripted and imagined in advance.  But how much of that is personal desire and individual intention, and how much is just social manipulation -- at the moment, manipulation that often limits women in macro ways.   

      Forgive me if this sounds like I'm concluding stuff you would not say at all.  But I'm not sure you quite explained what your model is, and I'm trying to reconcile a particular gap I sense.   

Quote
Sexual objectification is, at its heart, viewing another as a sexual object. If I see someone and consider them attractive I am self-evidently doing that.
There I think you're wrong about the heart.  You're trying to reduce it to a very physical definition in your concerns above and in chasing down so many possible uses of the word "object."  I do get very wary of definitions when it seems like they might readily be applied to smack things that I think are basically innocuous or natural too.  But here, the definition is more about principle than physical mechanic. 

     How much of what you consider attractive, might be already systemically drilled into people and used to manipulate them on many different levels?  How much are you aware of when it is and how?  And do you take into account that there are other dimensions to people in your relationships?  Do you ask about consent when there could easily be problems?  Do you have a philosophy about dating, or even viewing, or at least about people and society, that somehow tries to help?  You say you do at least some of these things, or at least sometimes.  Good.


     

consortium11

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AM
     I scanned through the article again and I did not find that particular example you raise.  So I think it would be up to you to spell out at more length how their definition must interpreted and deployed to be so "firm" on that.

Sexual desire (going by the article) "involves two (or more) people stating their desire for one another and consenting to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity." In the example Sheoldred listed the woman in question hasn't stated her desire for him and neither partner has consented to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Thus when he finds that woman attractive, according to the definition, it's not sexual desire.

Sexual objectification (going by the article) "puts one person in the role of subject and the other person in the role of object." In the example, Sheoldred is clearly the subject (his thoughts and feeling are being considered) and the woman is clearly the object (her thoughts and feelings aren't; she's just being considered attractive). Thus, sexual objectification.

If sexual desire requires all parties to state their desire to each other then until that statement is made there self-evidently can't be sexual desire. Up till that point the person finding the other attractive (and that could be every party involved) is viewing themselves as the subject and the other party as the object.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMI can imagine, with some work, a way you might interpret it that way.  But I'm inclined to think (maybe and hopefully) that's not really what the author intended.  I don't see that what you say in this part must follow from the contours of the short discussion she gave.

You know what they say about intentions and the way to hell...

When you put down a definition, that's what we have to go on. If that definition doesn't reflect your actual thinking then that's the fault of your use of language. Going by the definition, sexual desire only exists once it is stated and, furthermore, once mutually agreed upon sexual activity is consented to. That, and only that, is sexual desire according to the definition. Likewise sexual objectification is putting one party in the role of subject and one in the role of object. If an observer sees someone and finds them attractively they are self-evidently putting themselves into the role of subject and the other party in the role of object.

If that doesn't reflect what the author intended then she should have chosen her words better.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMBut here, I think maybe you're being a little oversensitive about stuff they didn't spend time to really analyze.  It's a short piece and I don't see the actual article stating an intent to conclude all that you are concluding.

If you include a definition then you have to expect that definition to be used. If the intention wasn't for the definition to be used, then one has to ask why it was included in the first place. And, as above, the definition used puts the example of seeing someone and considering them attractive squarely in the "sexual objectification" camp.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMHere, you are only focusing on sexual desire and you are starting from your own point of view.  And I think what is eating you there, is that if you assume your point of view is the common one, and if you assume they are demanding equal access for every female body to every man's date card on any given day...  Then I suppose, the article definition might come across more as placing the desires of those women who are not conventionally made up -- say, desires to get a date etc. -- somehow 'above' the preferences of those men for conventional feminine performance in the looks field.  However, they have not really stated such in the article.  To be sure, I guess we would have to ask for comment specifically about this sort of scenario -- it's not really raised as a model case.

I'm not sure I follow you here.

My issue with the definition certainly isn't that it places female desire above male desire or the like; the definition is gender neutral and *touch wood* my analysis of the definition is as well.

What's eating me is that the definition doesn't make logical sense (in essence it breaks down to "sexual desire is sexual desire and consenting to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity") and that following the definition considering someone attractive is sexual objectification which, from the tenor of the rest of the article, is a bad thing.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMI think their intent with "subject" and "object" is not really to ban gazing and viewing to suit simple desire.  But rather to encourage people to think more about how desire is often itself nurtured, shaped -- even socially limited as to what desires will be allowed to be mentioned -- for many people by convention, and often regardless of personal preference.  And moreover, to think about how certain desires are packaged into "types" of people who can have more power systemically:  Not simply in gazing as a matter of attraction, but more in controlling some people and driving others way from dating and from public life more generally at the same time.

What desire are you talking about?

Because as the definition makes absolutely clear, sexual desire cannot exist until both parties state it and then consent to mutually-agreed sexual activity. Up to that point it cannot be sexual desire. Looking at someone and considering them attractive? Not sexual desire. Looking at someone and thinking you'd enjoy sleeping with them. Not sexual desire.

The definition puts an incredibly high bar on what can be considered sexual desire. Anything that doesn't clear that bar isn't sexual desire and the vast majority of it will be sexual objectification.

I think in this case it's you reaching beyond the article. The use of "subject" and "object" was to define what sexual objectification is; it's when one party is the subject and the other is (somewhat self-evidently) the object. It's in the definition. Until the actions of both parties then get over the bar for it to be sexual desire (both parties stating their desire and then consenting to mutually agreed upon sexual activity) it remains sexual objectification.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMYou said above you had already concluded they modeled it as if it always were.  Though this could also be taken as some tacit admission that they haven't talked much about the stuff you have been saying was so obvious as to what you claim to be 'certain' what the author intended.

I don't think anyone would read that article and not leave it with the conclusion that the author thinks sexual objectification is a bad thing. I don't think anyone would read the vast, vast, vast majority of articles on objectification, especially those in the feminist webspace, and not conclude that the authors think sexual objectification is bad.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMFeminists often use the term like we generally use the word rape, yes.  Fine.  I guess we can agree there.

I'm not sure I follow; where did the discussion of rape come from? And what are we agreeing about with regards to rape?

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMThough I do imagine from a certain angle, linguistically, it could be possible to draw out the questions you raise until it feels like any fully positive or negative words could be totally unworkable in life.  We might also then have to constantly second guess words like consent, and rape, and idealism completely too.  I'm not sure it helps us, on the whole, to go that far.

Again I'm not really sure I follow. My issue with the definition isn't so much linguistic based as it is logic based; I don't think the definition holds up in and of itself and I don't like the conclusions the definition leads to.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMPerhaps they could have gone without "two or more," or taken some time to explain why they are interested in that particular version here.  I think it makes more sense if we assume the article was initially concerned with a particular form of objectification (call it exploitation, if changing the word a mite helps you any).  It makes it easier to show the principle when people assume the ideal case of consent involves both parties.  But with a little imagination, you could apply much the same principle to matters of sexual desire generally.

I've got no issue with the "two or more" part; sex isn't limited to two people engaging in it and as such it is only logical that neither is sexual desire.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMI suppose you have a certain point in there.  But then, so does Ridgway.  I think her idea of desire is a more socially motivated one.  You strike me as using a model of desire where it's sort of organic and spontaneous.  To put it another way, I wonder if she would say, be interested in more direct negotiation of how things are going to be done, whether on the street or in the bedroom.  "Can we sit down and talk about how this is going to be played now, between us, to make it all more fun?"  Whereas you seem to me to implicitly question whether anything that must be verbalized or negotiated (or even materially organized over time and through work and cooperation), can actually be spoken of as "desired."  And it goes round and round, because I would say -- and I think she would -- that many of the things we do with others (yes, granted they feel spontaneous and sometimes even one-sided to start) are also scripted and imagined in advance.  But how much of that is personal desire and individual intention, and how much is just social manipulation -- at the moment, manipulation that often limits women in macro ways.

Again I don't follow.

The definition of sexual desire requires "two (or more) people stating their desire for one another and consenting to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity." But what is "their desire for one another" if not sexual desire? It's circular and incoherent. Following the definition for their to be sexual desire both parties have to state their sexual desire... but sexual desire only appears after both parties have stated it (and also consented to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity). It's a complete logical mess.

As for me, I engage in BDSM play. Informed consent requires me to sit down and talk with my partner about what our desires, wants and limits are.

I'm in no way saying that something that is verbalised or negotiated isn't desire. I'm picking at the fact that the definition doesn't make sense because it pre-empts itself and that even with we handwave a way around that, following the definition anything that occurs before both parties state their desire and consent to mutually agreed upon sexual activity isn't sexual desire.

Quote from: kylie on October 06, 2014, 02:00:44 AMThere I think you're wrong about the heart.  You're trying to reduce it to a very physical definition in your concerns above and in chasing down so many possible uses of the word "object."  I do get very wary of definitions when it seems like they might readily be applied to smack things that I think are basically innocuous or natural too.  But here, the definition is more about principle than physical mechanic.

Sorry, how is sexual objectification not, at it's heart, be based around viewing someone as a sexual object? The very definition of objectification is viewing someone as an object.

Melusine

#9
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
It is something I am certainly striving for. However, I cannot claim that I've always been fair towards women. In retrospect, it can often be a fairly slippery slope, and many men don't even notice that they might be crossing the line from my personal experience. For example, would you say men bragging how many women they've slept with would be sexist? It implies a belief that a man's worth could be determined by the amount of females he has 'conquered' and mated with, which pertains to our primitive nature, the aim of which is to find as many mates as possible and conceive as much offspring as possible to ensure survival of the species as a whole as well as carry on one's personal genes. But do such notions have place in our contemporary society? On the other hand women are looked down upon as sluts if they 'conquer' many men. It's a classic double standard that has been discussed a lot, I'd reckon.

Men bragging about how many women they've slept with is quite sexist, in my opinion. Treating women as notches in your bedpost so you can appear as more of a man is rather objectifying. And yes, the inverse of women being called "sluts" because they've had lots of sex is also sexist. There isn't even the notion of them conquering men, people tell them that they've given themselves away. Regardless of anthropological perceptions (and how, conveniently, primitive humans apparently behaved according to 1950's gender roles) our modern society should be more enlightened.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
Do you think the media is responsible for making men less conscious of how they treat women? It isn't very uncommon to hear a woman crying about her ex or her current mate of treating her unfairly in one way or another, whether by cheating on her or whatever else she might find offensive. Basically taking her for granted and thinking that 'ah, she'll forgive me anyway, no biggie'.

Obviously. There are very few fully realized female roles in the media, with the complexity that real women have. Upset women are often stereotyped as "crazy" or "unreasonable". And there's also the stupid perceptions that Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, and never the twain shall understand each other. All that prevents both sexes from understanding that we're all human beings who can understand each other.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
And that leads me to another question. In the more unsavoury parts of the internet, you may often witness men insulting each-other by calling each-other 'virgins' or something similar to that. Basically, the point of the insult is to indicate that the person is incapable of attracting a mate of the opposite sex, and in most cases this insult is directed towards men. But do you think this could possibly be indirectly sexist towards women? Because in a way, the woman is indirectly the object that the man has to use, as the subject, in order to fulfill himself as a man and be respected by his peers. I got that from the nice article Kylie linked.

I'm not sure if this is sexist towards women. It implies that the man is awkward, or unattractive. Similar insults are levelled by women to other women. In such cases I think it's more destructive and harmful to men, because it's a kind of social pressure: if you're not sexually active, you're not a man. You're lesser. Which is, of course, bullshit.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
But it does so to men too, doesn't it? In fact I'd argue that men have it even worse but of course I might be biased here, being male, so take this with a grain of salt. Basically, as a male, the kind of oppression I've felt lies in the notion that in order to be a man I have to be able to fix cars, own one too, know how to fix anything, in fact, be competitive and outgoing(being a shy guy can easily get you stigmatized and stereotyped), always take initiative, not show emotion. It's ok for a woman to cry but when you cry as a guy you suddenly lose the respect of your peers.

Certainly, men also have restrictive gender roles to deal with. The examples you cited are all correct and you're absolutely right to protest about having to behave in a specific way to be considered a man. A patriarchal society destroys individual expression in both sexes. However, I really don't think men have it worse. Women still have to contend with constant sexual harassment, lower wages, less chances for a career advancement, the pressures of motherhood (which in most cases are worse than the pressures of fatherhood) and restriction of their bodily autonomy.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
Psychology says that crying is a mechanism babies and children in general use in order to give a sign they desperately need something, be it sustenance, warmth, emotional support or whatever else, aside from the 'cleansing' effect. I have a feeling that the society in general is more forgiving towards women who cry and seek support from her peers, but men are encouraged to be more independent, more self-sufficient. A guy hugging his guy friend and crying his eyes out is unacceptable and 'weird'. For women that's normal. You could see it both ways. That women are generally seen as the 'weaker' and more emotional sex and thus its sexist against women. But countless women have used this to their advantage too. You often hear of scandals where women win in courts simply by pretending to be the victim. I don't see any advantage here for men, on the other hand. Only for those who can truly meet expectations and be considered the 'alphas'.

Society is definitely more forgiving of emotional women, and I genuinely feel for men who have to stifle more vulnerable emotions. And yes, there is a percentage of women who exploit that. You're right that there's only an advantage for the men who fit that alpha "model" at the expence of their emotional health. But the disadvantage for women is that we're considered weak and overly emotional for our feelings.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
Not to mention Hollywood movies tend to portray male protagonists as tall, handsome and fit too, with perfect hair. Just like your average heroine from a romantic movie doesn't look like your average woman in real life, neither does the average guy look like the hollywood hunks who are in fact often paid and provided with more than enough money to get personal trainers, nutritionists and so forth. Besides the looks, the men in movies are shown as very confident and successful. The classic example would be James Bond.

That's true. Men are also idealized. But, to bring this back to your original point, men are seldom sexually objectified. They're portrayed as the active subject who has sex with many women and is manlier for it. The camera rarely lingers on their ass or chest. They have more personality traits than a shallow love interest. Still, they are highly unrealistic and put pressure on the average man.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
And I don't want to come off as bitter but I do have a feeling many women tend to have unreasonably high standards, and its possible they do so for the very same reasons men prefer the prettier girls. Because the way media tends to idolize these perfect examples of both sexes.

No disagreement there. Shallow men and women both exist.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 05, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
I've heard similar stories before. Could it be that these women feel so inferior that they think that even wearing make-up and wearing pretty dresses or skirts wouldn't make them as pretty as the more naturally beautiful women who do the same, still ending up bitter and less preferred by men? Thus they hide their insecurity by trying to claim that make-up and dresses are bullshit that men use to manipulate women. Sort of how homophobic men hate on homosexuals because they're afraid of their own hidden attraction. A defensive mechanism of sorts, that's actually self-destructive and debasing.

As a woman who has no idea how to wear makeup and "doll up", I have to admit I sometimes feel insecure and "less feminine". When I was a teenager I tried to deflect this by idolizing the exact model of the "special nerdy girl" I described in my previous post. I read a lot of books, played videogames and had many male friends. I thought that girly habits were stupid and shallow.

Nowadays I understand that my behavior was internalized misogyny. There's no "right" way to be a woman. Performing femininity is just as valid as being a tomboy. My past behavior absolutely was a defensive mechanism that was damaging to me and other women.

Lady Laura

I'm not much for the PC thing, I think if you like someone and want to get to know them even if the initial attraction was all physical than that is fine, I think it is even ok to admire someone from a far if you like their legs or arms or whatever it is about them. I don't think that is objectification but more like admiring their beauty.

To me objectification goes deeper than that, it is things like strippers and web cam girls/guys, true in these cases the performer objectifies themselves however it sits awkwardly with me as I don't believe I have to help them with that by watching. So for me it becomes this odd situation where I/the viewer helps them turn themselves into a commodity where they will perform acts for money.

Maybe I have all the definitions wrong here but to me that is objectification when you see someone purely as a piece of meat for your amusement rather than someone you think is beautiful and want to admire or get to know.

Intent is everything.

Steampunkette

Goooonna go ahead and hop in here to say that yes, sexual objectification is bad.

Any form of objectification is bad, to be honest. Sexual Objectification is just the most prominent one (and the one almost exclusively applied to women).

Objectification is not "Oh, I find this attractive" or any variation of that form. It's reducing the person into an Object. They are no longer a person with perspectives and agency and interests, dreams hopes and fears, they are just some thing to find sexy. No more human or active than a table lamp in the shape of a befishnetted leg.

Before any pedants show up and comment that all images are objects or that women objectify themselves by (insert completely missing the point reasoning, here): People are not objects and they cannot self-objectify by definition. Why? Because objectification requires there be only one perspective: The External. A Lamp does not object. It doesn't do anything. It's a lamp. It sits there until someone else acts on it. Now a person could -allow- others to objectify them, or encourage it, but the act of objectification is external to the person being objectified.

Now with that stated: Is a character, like Power Girl, Objectified or Empowered?


By the power of Boobs!

The answer is: Objectified.

No character in the history of characterization is Empowered. Nor can they be. The Fantastic Four threw a hissy fit over people commenting on the Invisible Woman's objectification and the sexism in Marvel Comics Sue Storm herself piped up and cried out against all the mean people saying she wasn't a good female role model. But Sue Storm has no voice. No agency. She's just a character on a page. Any words she says are determined by the writers and artists who created her character and draw, ink, color, edit, letter, and publish the comics she is in. She doesn't exist as a concrete entity and doesn't represent herself in any reasonable fashion.

Similarly, for all the bluster of Comic Fans Power Girl having a Boobwindow in the middle of her one-piece swimsuit superhero costume, is not empowered. She isn't a feminist who goes out and fights crime to show other girls how it's done without complaining about guys staring at her body. She is an Object. A Puppet controlled in the most literal way imaginable by the men and women who create her comic.

Similarly, female characters in TV Shows and Movies are not empowered. They are the creation of writers, directors, costume departments, and producers portrayed by an actress. That actress might be an empowered feminist, because she has Agency. The ability to control her own actions and statements, a perspective on reality, and a real history.

Now a female character can be written in such a way as to mimic being empowered or being a feminist. Can be shown as a good role model for people of all ages. But she is not, herself, empowered because she does not exist.

In the history of media women have been objectified. We have been made goals or macguffins, rewards and motivations. For a huge swath of time the idea of getting into a woman's perspective has been the stuff of "Chick Flicks" and Soap Operas. The media loves to investigate the inner workings of masculinity and male life, however. And most movies give us deep and involved explanations of what makes the main (male) character who he is. The first third of Conan, a Film about a dude with a sword hacking up the people who killed his family, is devoted to a montage of his life with a serious voiceover of how he grew up from the boy who watched his family killed into a slave and then a gladiator (for whom slave women were delivered to be pounded) and then finally into a free man who could take revenge. Compare and contrast to Red Sonya, which gives us the death of her people, a 40 second scene of making her oath, and then she's fighting. What happened to her 20 minute origin story and exposition where male slaves are delivered for her pleasure?

And this perspective is so pervasive, so all consuming, that it is seen as default. As neutral. You have Movies and then you have Chick Flicks. There's no specific "Dudebro Films" or any similar title that segregates out the movies Men are supposed to watch but women will get bored of like men are supposed to get bored during Chick Flicks.

Sorry... kind of went on a tangent on perspectives, but the point stands. Objectification of real people is wrong. And creating characters with the explicit intent of sexually objectifying is seen as normal... when it's women being objectified.

When a dude gets objectified it feels awkward, disingenuous, and confusing. This just shows the problem for what it is.

I'll go ahead and link two videos of incredibly sexy men doing sexy dances and generally looking as sexy as they can. I can't embed them, sadly, but hopefully you'll enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXXZpr8YlSI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdiGBI6yngw

The former is a group of gay men trying to entice other men. It's DAMNED sexy in pretty much all the ways that women in music videos are presented as sexy. Bedroom eyes, bit lips, enticing grins, oiled up bodies, interacting with phallic props, shaking their asses and dancing smooth and sexy throughout. The second is a man standing in his living room dancing to Beyonce's Crazy in Love and yee gods I have to fan myself whenever I watch it because -that- is a sexy guy. Like shivery in my spine and tummy sexy. Gonna go watch it again before I continue typing...

Woo...

Now some people like to throw out the canard that dudes are just as objectified by big muscles and power that women are attracted to... To which I say Tom Hiddleston, Benedict Cumberbatch, Neil Patrick Harris. All men who aren't muscular, but whom women fawn over. For further evidence: Every Boy Band that has ever had Panties thrown at them, Clint Eastwood, Fred Astaire, Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, and Humphrey Bogart. All male sex symbols, none of them beefed up like Schwarzenegger.

I mean... just look at this. This is Hugh Jackman on the cover of Muscle and Fitness, a magazine primarily marketed towards Dudes.


Tell me how that looks NOTHING like what you'd see in a comic book of Wolverine's. The "Eye Candy" for women, if the Canard I meant to be followed.


Now contrast to how he is portrayed on this cover of Good Housekeeping, a magazine marketed to women the same month that Muscle mag came out.


One of these things is not like the others! One of these things just isn't the same!

Dudes are almost never objectified. And when they are it is almost inevitably on their own terms, such as the Cazwell video or Chris Koo's dancing... *goes to watch it again* hooo...

Anyway... yeah. If men were objectified in the media to an equal extent as women we'd be having a VERY different discussion. And objectification is wrong. And Chris Koo is sexy as all get out. But he isn't an object, he's a dancer. Just so we're clear, on that one.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

rou

Okay, I'm going to stop reading some of the posts because I can't really keep up and my head is spinning. The way I think of objectification isn't about subject and object, but more like...

Personification is when you take a thing and apply human qualities. The tree wept. Trees don't weep, but when we say they do, we imply some level of personality and character. Weeping implies emotions. The trees look sad and wilted. Objectification is when you take a person and take away their human qualities. An objectified woman is stripped of her emotions and personality, hopes and dreams, and the ability to act for herself.

I don't even remotely agree with the definition of sexual desire given. Desire means wanting something. Attraction means enjoying or being drawn to something. Consent has nothing to do with desire or attraction. I need not consent to someone's attraction or feelings toward me; that would be absurd. But a man thinking I'm attractive and admiring my appearance is not the same thing as being gawked at and catcalled. Staring tends to make some women quite uncomfortable and to defend the right to stare because, "Hey, you shouldn't get so worked up. I'm just trying to admire the way you look! Why'd you get all dolled up if you didn't want to be seen?"

But to see someone and think they are attractive? That's not objectification. At the very least, that's not what most (sensible) people are actually talking about when they're discussing objectification, so if the very literal meaning of the word is different, I think we can probably save time by not arguing the semantics of the phrase.

Feminism is about equality. There are a lot of different women on this planet. As any group, they will naturally disagree on what they want. As any group, there will be vocal fanatics. I resent the people who dismiss me and my ideas about feminism only because some other woman pissed them off. Feminism is not about man-hating. So, whatever. Maybe it's a handful of feminists that might think Sheoldred is evil for liking femininity in his intimate partner and not requiring it from anyone at all. But let's be very clear about this from the start: it is not these people's feminism that prompts them to have such thoughts, but generally their idiocy.*

* Unless there's a particularly awesome argument for this line of thinking that I have yet to hear from a sane individual, but I highly doubt it. Anyone who thinks men are inherently evil is just... ugh.

Just another side-point: if an individual woman benefits from sexism or intentionally uses it to her advantage, it is still sexism. Regardless of whether her actions are ethical (though if they are not, I would not condone pretending they are). Sometimes women are manipulative and crafty. Sometimes they're just making the most of a bad situation. They're as human as men are.

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

Valthazar

Quote from: roulette on October 06, 2014, 07:56:52 PMAs any group, they will naturally disagree on what they want. As any group, there will be vocal fanatics. I resent the people who dismiss me and my ideas about feminism only because some other woman pissed them off. Feminism is not about man-hating. So, whatever. Maybe it's a handful of feminists that might think Sheoldred is evil for liking femininity in his intimate partner and not requiring it from anyone at all. But let's be very clear about this from the start: it is not these people's feminism that prompts them to have such thoughts, but generally their idiocy.*

I agree with you that women latch onto feminism for a myriad of reason.  There is far more breadth of perspectives today within the umbrella of feminism, than in many of the past decades.  There are many feminists, like yourself, who believe in the equality between men and women, but the unfortunate reality is that there is no governing body, or mainstream 'reference' upon which to empirically state that this is the "true essence" of 3rd wave feminism.

I guess my point is that while I agree with you, there is little basis upon which to suggest that this version of feminism is any more accurate or inaccurate compared to the those feminists who will criticize men like Sheroldred.  From what I have read in the past, the response is usually that, "this isn't what feminism is all about."  Yet at the same time, both sets of perspectives are espoused by women who actively consider their interpretation to be the true feminism.

In fact, I think much of the aversion to the term "feminism" by many contemporary women is due to these divisions.  While I agree with your interpretation, roulette, and on a personal level, also criticize feminists who would find fault with men for simply being drawn to certain traits, what empirical basis do we have to make that criticism?  They are as entitled to their interpretation of patriarchy as we are.

rou

#14
But I mean, the definition of feminism is literally about equality. I typed in "What is feminism?" in Google.

Google definition:* Taken from Oxford, it seems
Quotethe advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Redletter Press: (first result)
QuoteBritish suffragist and journalist Rebecca West famously said, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." In other words, feminism is a commitment to achieving the equality of the sexes. This radical notion is not exclusive to women: men, while benefiting from being the dominant sex, also have a stake in overcoming the restrictive roles that deprive them of full humanity.

Wikipedia: (second result)
QuoteFeminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.

About.com: (third result, the definition was not given so clearly about equality, but it was mentioned and I am including the relevant parts).
QuoteFeminism refers to a diverse variety of beliefs, ideas, movements, and agendas for action.
...
The assumption in feminism is that women are not treated equally to men, and that women are disadvantaged in comparison to men.

These are the first three links that came up, if you don't include the google definition. Here are some more definitions:

QuoteDictionary.com
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
(sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

Merriam-Webster
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests

Oxford English* Same as the Google definition
The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

I agree that people are very confused about what feminism is, but I do not believe there is a lack of a central definition of the movement. I think many people disagree on how equality is to be reached. But I think it is very central that feminism is about equality. How we get there is the big question, and the big division, and perhaps you and I shall agree to that.

Note: Scout's honor that I included each definition I found in the top results, and would have included any results that did not support my position. I didn't pick and choose. I also hope I didn't list too many sources; I in no way intend to be unkind or patronizing or "rub it in", so to speak. So I hope I did not offend.



edit to note the sameness of the Google and Oxford definitions.

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

Valthazar

#15
What I'm saying is that the paths required to be taken to achieve equality differ considerably among feminists, based on their understandings of what constitutes bias, sexism, and patriarchy in different contexts.

In other words, no feminist would ever say as a direct quote that "Sheoldred is evil for liking femininity in his intimate partner" - but rather, some feminists may critique his appreciation for traditional femininity as a patriarchal influence that subjugates women to "less than equal" status, and thus criticize his actions in that manner.  Even the feminists you dismissed as man-haters rather than feminists, are using the very same terminology of equality in developing their stance.

rou

#16
Then we are in agreement, Val.

But when I attack man-haters, I do attack man-haters. I am certain there are people who would critique his appreciation for traditional femininity. They have their opinions and if they can discuss the topic in a respectful manner, then I think maybe they'll have points that are thought-provoking, and they may have something to contribute to the conversation. I would not agree with them personally.

But if that's the kind of person we're talking about? I don't agree with saying those kind of people would consider Sheoldred to be evil. Implying that "some feminists would consider him evil" to me either that we are actually talking about vocal fanatics and idiots, or that a very offensive accusation is being made about someone's peaceful and legitimate opinion. So I really hope, with that quote, we are not talking about level-headed feminists who would critique his appreciation.

I only mean to say one of two things, whichever is relevant:

If someone says they don't agree with the way you do things, or that they think you've done something wrong... don't even summarize that into "Oh, well, these people think I'm evil for doing this." It's dismissive and insulting and inaccurate. Thinking you're wrong is not the same thing as thinking you're evil. Feminism has enough of a bad rep without the exaggeration and villainizing that this statement implies.

If, on the other hand, someone is actually saying you're evil? If they're incredibly hostile and belligerent and petty and nitpicking? I don't know, ignore them. But do not consider those people and their opinions to be representative of feminism. It's not feminism.

I would say exactly the same everywhere else. The Westboro Baptist Church and cults centered around Christianity, though they say they are Christians all they like, are not representative of Christianity. ISIS is not representative of Islam. I am aware that this can cause confusion and that, of course, opposing parties will use the radicals to beat down the religion or movement. And it works.

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

kylie

#17
           Consortium:  Granted some definitions may be neater than others.  Quick definitions are always so-called "vulnerable" to picking over words because there are so few words.  Long definitions are always "vulnerable" to picking over the discussion because...  There are so many words and exceptions.  And if someone wants to fuss over the same words forever without making a serious effort to understand the context and intent the author spoke with, particularly when they are batting around an example which the author they are bashing never even took up?  Well if those are the rules, then everyone can pretty much forget adopting any shared definitions of anything because no one is ever going to have an honest conversation (or at least, not a productive one) with each other that way. 

            The road to obfuscation is paved with purposefully and vindictively avoiding all discussion of context and intention.  And that is as much fuss as I care to gave that particular diatribe. 
     

kylie

#18
Quote from: Sheoldred
Where does the line between objectification and desire lie, exactly? It's only natural to be attracted to a female's(or male's) looks. Is it objectification if I'm attracted to women I see on the streets purely based on their looks and body language?
I don't think so.  (With perhaps minor qualifications below.)

Quote
Is there something wrong with preferring women to be feminine? By this I mean mostly clothing, make-up, body language and other various mannerisms...
Not immediately.  I'd like to be more feminine, and so would lots of women in certain aspects at least.   ;)  I think where the objectification question comes up is more:  Can we also keep an eye out, at least part of the time, to realize that there are also situations where demands are placed on women in general to do a really huge range of things (some of them even mutually exclusive things!) that are conventionally considered "feminine" or even "ideally feminine," and those who don't are punished -- again, not only about dates but in terms of jobs, treatment by the media, how people may react to them in certain conversations, on and on.  So people who use the term objectification care about whether we are also sometimes thinking about that. 

      There are places where how we talk about or perhaps how we display sexual desire overlaps with how social systems exploit people -- in short, sometimes power has gotten mixed up a whole lot with desire.  That is more what the overall genre I would say of "objectification" theory is concerned about at the core:  Can we tell or can we really manage both well in this sort of society?

Quote
But according to some feminists I'm an evil man for doing so because I support the objectification of women...
Basically I agree with you. 

      The philosophical complexity, and at least some of the sticking point with that particular branch of feminism, would involve arguing about exactly how or why one might actually be able to guess what is objectification.  Or what is not, for that matter.  While there are some feminist strains that might fuss more about who likes to see what, I think it's more productive here to speak of interactions.  What happens when she sees you looking?  What happens if you do date her?  Or what happens when you talk to others about her (or about less feminine women for that matter)?  There, it's maybe clearer if someone is maybe (even incidentally) being framed for one purpose or another beyond their interest in life, or in the relationship. 

     So in that sense -- to whatever degree that it doesn't in the moment involve other people so much -- I agree with those who say generally, gazing in itself is not likely objectification.  Though gazing with a thought of, "Why can't all women be like her?  It's so frustrating!"  I dunno, that might move one step closer...  So some feminists do get on edge because it's not always easy to tell who or what else is implicated, sometimes without much conscious thought at all, in gazing and interactions that often are related to it.       
     

Sheoldred

QuoteBefore any pedants show up and comment that all images are objects or that women objectify themselves by (insert completely missing the point reasoning, here): People are not objects and they cannot self-objectify by definition. Why? Because objectification requires there be only one perspective: The External. A Lamp does not object. It doesn't do anything. It's a lamp. It sits there until someone else acts on it. Now a person could -allow- others to objectify them, or encourage it, but the act of objectification is external to the person being objectified.

That's not true. Hypothetically speaking, if I could transform into the hottest woman conceivable in my own mind, I'd totally objectify myself before a mirror. ;)

Speaking of which, for the sake of the topic I decided to share a specific detail about myself that my ex found appalling. If I need some alone time with myself, so to speak, I always think about female parts. Not that they'd be separate from the woman but I basically focus on parts and probably objectify the female body, yes. Heck, sometimes it makes it easier to think of fantasy races(elves, draenei etc) for me instead of real people. That, or porn actresses. However, I cannot ever bring myself to masturbate to people that I know - not even actresses. If I've seen the actress in a proper movie, not some mindless porn, I just can't do it. The ex I mentioned got mad at me because she was probably insulted by the fact that I can't toy with myself using her pictures or imagining her and its pretty important for a woman to be acknowledged as beautiful, isnt it? Even with her full consent I just somehow couldn't do it. Not that I had a strong moral stand on it, my conscious just didn't let me. It simply felt 'wrong' to create a duplicate of the real person in my own mind and make them act how I'd find it pleasing. On the other hand, just focusing on the body without giving it a name seemed much easier. Whenever I do give the woman a personality, its a fictional woman of my own imagination, usually not even entirely human(again, elf or some persian princess or something like that).

Quote
The first third of Conan, a Film about a dude with a sword hacking up the people who killed his family, is devoted to a montage of his life with a serious voiceover of how he grew up from the boy who watched his family killed into a slave and then a gladiator (for whom slave women were delivered to be pounded) and then finally into a free man who could take revenge. Compare and contrast to Red Sonya, which gives us the death of her people, a 40 second scene of making her oath, and then she's fighting. What happened to her 20 minute origin story and exposition where male slaves are delivered for her pleasure?

Don't you dare criticise Conan the Barbarian, it's one of the most epic movies of all time! OF ALL TIME! It's sacred. >:c

Honestly, all the sequels went downhill, so I'm not sure if this specifically has anything to do with women being portrayed as 'less' of a character. But my gut feeling is telling you're probably right. Perhaps they thought the male audience would feel unnerved if a woman was put in such a position of power that she was the one offered male slaves, not the other way around.

I, for one, would totally RP with a powerful mistress on the other hand :p.

QuoteNow some people like to throw out the canard that dudes are just as objectified by big muscles and power that women are attracted to... To which I say Tom Hiddleston, Benedict Cumberbatch, Neil Patrick Harris. All men who aren't muscular, but whom women fawn over. For further evidence: Every Boy Band that has ever had Panties thrown at them, Clint Eastwood, Fred Astaire, Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, and Humphrey Bogart. All male sex symbols, none of them beefed up like Schwarzenegger.

I mean... just look at this. This is Hugh Jackman on the cover of Muscle and Fitness, a magazine primarily marketed towards Dudes.


What you're saying is true, women are more objectified as sexual objects. But I think this won't ever change either unless we all became hermaphrodites because of the way male and female psyche works, and due to how the culture and society likes to define sex roles and further empower the stereotypes ,it becomes even harder. Men will never know what it's like to be objectified at its worst, and women won't know the pressures men are under, and the expectations, and the impact of the social stigmas when you're labelled a complete loser. Statistically, men suicide more, do they not?

QuoteThe former is a group of gay men trying to entice other men. It's DAMNED sexy in pretty much all the ways that women in music videos are presented as sexy. Bedroom eyes, bit lips, enticing grins, oiled up bodies, interacting with phallic props, shaking their asses and dancing smooth and sexy throughout. The second is a man standing in his living room dancing to Beyonce's Crazy in Love and yee gods I have to fan myself whenever I watch it because -that- is a sexy guy. Like shivery in my spine and tummy sexy. Gonna go watch it again before I continue typing...

Linked these videos to my straight female friend, she thinks these videos are unfunny and unsexy. I'm quite interested to know why is it that you think you're attracted to men dancing like women? Perhaps the movements this Chris Koo is performing are actually universal and unisex at their very core but our cultures have distorted our view and raised us to think only women are meant to act like this? But the body language is extremely effeminate, is it not? The movements seem to convey submission to me. Compare it to this video -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIvOf0Xmzo

Tatum conveys more masculinity while still wooing women. You think Chris Koo's dance is sexier?

And would you say this is just as sexy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7oGx2dImE8


Melusine

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
That's not true. Hypothetically speaking, if I could transform into the hottest woman conceivable in my own mind, I'd totally objectify myself before a mirror. ;)

That's probably because you'd think of your female body (assuming your ideal female body has breasts, vagina and related characteristics, which isn't universal) as something temporary and other than yourself, at least your true self. Female bodied people who are attracted to women aren't attracted to themselves. Otherwise, lesbian/bisexual/pansexual women would be staring at their own breasts all the time.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
What you're saying is true, women are more objectified as sexual objects. But I think this won't ever change either unless we all became hermaphrodites because of the way male and female psyche works, and due to how the culture and society likes to define sex roles and further empower the stereotypes ,it becomes even harder. Men will never know what it's like to be objectified at its worst, and women won't know the pressures men are under, and the expectations, and the impact of the social stigmas when you're labelled a complete loser. Statistically, men suicide more, do they not?

So according to you, men are wired to objectify women sexually? Pardon me, but that's total bullshit. What about gay men? Asexual men? The male and female psyche are influenced by society and upbringing, and men don't have to become hermaphrodites to treat women decently. Don't you think that's kind of insulting to men? "Oh, we can't help treating you like meat! It's natural for us, it can't change unless we become hermaphrodites or something!" Men aren't biologically destined to be sexist assholes. Sex roles and stereotypes are purely societal. They can and should change.

Also, men are more successful in suicide. Women attempt it more, but because of the methods they use which usually aren't instantly lethal (pills, for example) they dodge death more frequently. Men use more violent methods (like guns) which have higher success rates.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
Linked these videos to my straight female friend, she thinks these videos are unfunny and unsexy. I'm quite interested to know why is it that you think you're attracted to men dancing like women? Perhaps the movements this Chris Koo is performing are actually universal and unisex at their very core but our cultures have distorted our view and raised us to think only women are meant to act like this? But the body language is extremely effeminate, is it not? The movements seem to convey submission to me.

When I saw the videos that Steampunkette linked, I was both aroused and slightly uneasy. Aroused because, obviously, they're attractive men, they display their sexy bodies. But uneasy because there was a visceral feeling of "they're not supposed to behave like that, they're men, it's not right". In our society, displaying one's body in such a seductive way is the domain of women. Men aren't supposed to pose and dance to entice, just as they're not supposed to be penetrated. Of course, this idea (and my visceral reaction) is sexist and rather gender essentialist. "Effeminate" is a label we assign to their body language because our culture tells us it is. So is "submission". They convey submission to you because they're feminine/effeminate, aka submissive. The two go hand in hand in our culture.

Steampunkette is probably attracted to these men (and I don't want to talk over her, I'll just make an educated guess) because why not? Just like you, Sheoldred, are attracted to feminine women, some men are attracted to masculine women. And some women are attracted to "feminine" men. They like the type. Blurring the lines of gender presentation can be very attractive and appealing to some people. As I said before, it takes all types to make a world.


Sheoldred

QuoteThat's probably because you'd think of your female body (assuming your ideal female body has breasts, vagina and related characteristics, which isn't universal) as something temporary and other than yourself, at least your true self. Female bodied people who are attracted to women aren't attracted to themselves. Otherwise, lesbian/bisexual/pansexual women would be staring at their own breasts all the time.

It was mostly a jest! I am well aware that the chemistry of the female body is different. Although do you think there's a correlation between being more feminine and heterosexuality? From my experience lesbians tend to look more androgynous while the more feminine women are more likely to be strictly straight but there are exceptions, of course.

QuoteSo according to you, men are wired to objectify women sexually? Pardon me, but that's total bullshit. What about gay men? Asexual men? The male and female psyche are influenced by society and upbringing, and men don't have to become hermaphrodites to treat women decently. Don't you think that's kind of insulting to men? "Oh, we can't help treating you like meat! It's natural for us, it can't change unless we become hermaphrodites or something!" Men aren't biologically destined to be sexist assholes. Sex roles and stereotypes are purely societal. They can and should change.

No, they don't, but there's a lot of sexism out there, and I think it stems from the 'natural wiring' which is further conditioned by the media and the society. My point is that men should be more conscious of these issues and ensure they don't fall into these traps because of their own ego and the media portrayals of women. Lest they want to end up like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gThKOR5FGz4

But its' going to take time since there's already so much 'trash' out there. Not that these movies and games are exactly bad, but it requires a certain level of sensitivity and consciousness to recognize how women are objectified so we don't subconsciously transcribe those values into our daily lives. It isn't something that is taught in schools. At least not around here.



QuoteAlso, men are more successful in suicide. Women attempt it more, but because of the methods they use which usually aren't instantly lethal (pills, for example) they dodge death more frequently. Men use more violent methods (like guns) which have higher success rates.

I've some speculations about this but I'll keep them to myself for now.



QuoteSteampunkette is probably attracted to these men (and I don't want to talk over her, I'll just make an educated guess) because why not? Just like you, Sheoldred, are attracted to feminine women, some men are attracted to masculine women. And some women are attracted to "feminine" men. They like the type. Blurring the lines of gender presentation can be very attractive and appealing to some people. As I said before, it takes all types to make a world.

Of course, I just find it curious. My own country is rather dogmatic in its views. For example, nearly all the girls and women I've personally met here were quite fond of the stereotypical representations of men. Anything effeminate, like K-pop and J-pop starts were just weird and awkward to them. Just to give you more perspective, apparently 96% voted against changing the laws of marriage in the country to accommodate gays, out of all the people who actually bothered to vote.


consortium11

Quote from: kylie on October 07, 2014, 03:57:28 AM
           Consortium:  Granted some definitions may be neater than others.  Quick definitions are always so-called "vulnerable" to picking over words because there are so few words.  Long definitions are always "vulnerable" to picking over the discussion because...  There are so many words and exceptions.  And if someone wants to fuss over the same words forever without making a serious effort to understand the context and intent the author spoke with, particularly when they are batting around an example which the author they are bashing never even took up?  Well if those are the rules, then everyone can pretty much forget adopting any shared definitions of anything because no one is ever going to have an honest conversation (or at least, not a productive one) with each other that way. 

            The road to obfuscation is paved with purposefully and vindictively avoiding all discussion of context and intention.  And that is as much fuss as I care to gave that particular diatribe.

Or, rather than it being a "diatribe" where I'm supposedly not many any effort to understand the context or intent, could it be that it's actually just a poor definition? Roulette likewise doesn't agree with the definition... is she she equally guilty of "purposefully and vindictively avoiding all discussion of context and intention"?

Let's remember quite how silly that definition is. Unless all parties not only state their desire for each other and consent to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity it's not a sexual desire (and thus a non-sexual desire). So one person fantasing about their partner? Non-sexual desire. Someone wanting to have sex with someone else? Non-sexual desire. Two people expressing their desire for each other (the exact words from the definition)? Non-sexual desire unless they also consent to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.

Under that definition a desire to have sex with someone is a non-sexual desire. I think when a definition of sexual desire excludes a desire to have sex with someone it's time to sit up and think perhaps this wasn't the best of definition.

I fully well understand the intention (to explain the difference between sexual desire and sexual objectification) and the context (as part of a wider article which said that men can be sexually objectified but it tends to be in a less harmful way and have lesser consequences... something I agree with). Nothing changes the fact that it's a pretty awful definition that puts an exceptionally high bar on what can be classed as "sexual desire" and a very low one on sexual objectification.




Quote from: Steampunkette on October 06, 2014, 06:35:59 PMNow some people like to throw out the canard that dudes are just as objectified by big muscles and power that women are attracted to... To which I say Tom Hiddleston, Benedict Cumberbatch, Neil Patrick Harris. All men who aren't muscular, but whom women fawn over. For further evidence: Every Boy Band that has ever had Panties thrown at them, Clint Eastwood, Fred Astaire, Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, and Humphrey Bogart. All male sex symbols, none of them beefed up like Schwarzenegger.

But the counterpart to the beefcake trope of attractiveness would be the (frequently) blond bombshell Pamela Anderson/Marilyn Monroe... all big lips, big bust, big butt etc etc. And while many men certainly do find that attractive, it's certainly not the only "type" people like. A quick perusal of FHM's list of the 100 sexiest women (where men voted for the women they found sexiest and is pretty much the perfect example of the sort of objectification men find sexy) shows comparatively few of the "bombshell" types... the top five read Kaley Cuoco (who probably just about fits that mold), Emily Ratajkowski, Rihanna, Michelle Keegan (a UK soapstar/actress) and Jennifer Lawrence... the last four of whom I'd argue clearly don't. There were only three in the top 10 (Scarlett Johansson, Lucy Mecklenburgh and the aforementioned Kaley Cuoco) who fit the bombshell mold at all and you'll see Emilia Clarke above Kate Upton, Emma Watson above Kelly Brook, Taylor Swift above Holly Willoughby, Zooey Deschanel above Mollie King and the un-bombshell-like looks of Susanna Reid, Jenna-Louise Coleman, Cressida Bonas, Amanda Seyfried and Irina Shayk all rank highly.

Just as the bombshell is only one way of objectifying women, beefcake is only one way of objectifying men.

Melusine

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 07:37:43 AM
It was mostly a jest! I am well aware that the chemistry of the female body is different. Although do you think there's a correlation between being more feminine and heterosexuality? From my experience lesbians tend to look more androgynous while the more feminine women are more likely to be strictly straight but there are exceptions, of course.

I think the correlation between femininity and heterosexuality is mostly a stereotype. I know many straight tomboys. But since I don't have many interactions (to my knowledge at least) with lesbian or bisexual women, I can't really answer this reliably.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 07:37:43 AM
No, they don't, but there's a lot of sexism out there, and I think it stems from the 'natural wiring' which is further conditioned by the media and the society. My point is that men should be more conscious of these issues and ensure they don't fall into these traps because of their own ego and the media portrayals of women. Lest they want to end up like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gThKOR5FGz4

But its' going to take time since there's already so much 'trash' out there. Not that these movies and games are exactly bad, but it requires a certain level of sensitivity and consciousness to recognize how women are objectified so we don't subconsciously transcribe those values into our daily lives. It isn't something that is taught in schools. At least not around here.

No, I absolutely disagree. There's no natural wiring that makes men believe women are inferior. There's no evidence and no proof. Media and society create the problem. That man is a prime example of the harmful effects of objectification. He just wanted women to have sex with him, regardless of their own needs and desires. He died, but sadly he isn't the only one with such views.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 07:37:43 AM
Of course, I just find it curious. My own country is rather dogmatic in its views. For example, nearly all the girls and women I've personally met here were quite fond of the stereotypical representations of men. Anything effeminate, like K-pop and J-pop starts were just weird and awkward to them. Just to give you more perspective, apparently 96% voted against changing the laws of marriage in the country to accommodate gays, out of all the people who actually bothered to vote.

My country is similar, and it's also quite backwards in these matters. Sexist and homophobic.

Valthazar

#24
Quote from: Melusine on October 07, 2014, 06:41:18 AMSteampunkette is probably attracted to these men (and I don't want to talk over her, I'll just make an educated guess) because why not? Just like you, Sheoldred, are attracted to feminine women, some men are attracted to masculine women. And some women are attracted to "feminine" men. They like the type. Blurring the lines of gender presentation can be very attractive and appealing to some people. As I said before, it takes all types to make a world.

While I understand your perspective, I tend to agree with Sheoldred on a more practical level.

It's easy to espouse these egalitarian views on a theoretical level, but in practice, a "straight feminine man" is only fooling himself if he actually believes that the majority of feminist women (or women in general, for that matter) are so open-minded as to not factor in traits of "masculinity" in their own dating partners.  I'm certain many will disagree with me on a philosophical level - which I agree, is quite unfortunate for the more effeminate straight men out there.  While one could certainly make the case that this is due to deeply internalized gender roles even among feminist women, it is my belief that many women simply tend to find traditionally masculine traits as "attractive" (and why should that be discouraged if that is their preference?).  As was mentioned, there are certainly women who are exceptions to this rule, but suggesting that these individuals represent a true diversity of thought only trivializes how rare it actually is for women to actively 'seek out' effeminate, straight men as a first choice.

How much of this is due to societal influence is often a point of contention.  Purely my personal thoughts - I am not quite sure this can be entirely attributed to social factors alone, though it most certainly plays a significant role.

Sheoldred

QuoteI think the correlation between femininity and heterosexuality is mostly a stereotype. I know many straight tomboys. But since I don't have many interactions (to my knowledge at least) with lesbian or bisexual women, I can't really answer this reliably.

Being sort of a tomboy yourself(right? :P) there's little doubt you've met more women alike yourself. But girls become tomboys for various reasons, don't they? Perhaps some simply matured fast enough to realise what an awful scramble it is to try always look as pretty as a doll while judging others. Quite a few tomboys told me they can barely stand other women and simply hang out with men, and being constantly surrounded by men shapes their own habits and outlooks eventually, its a natural adaption. Or they had insecurities, and by the time they lost them they were already quite used to their tomboy lifestyle. But I don't really have enough info to work with myself either, we can only know so many people out of millions.


QuoteNo, I absolutely disagree. There's no natural wiring that makes men believe women are inferior. There's no evidence and no proof. Media and society create the problem. That man is a prime example of the harmful effects of objectification. He just wanted women to have sex with him, regardless of their own needs and desires. He died, but sadly he isn't the only one with such views.

Oh no, you misunderstood me. They're not wired to view women as 'inferior' but its not unheard of that people say men think with their dicks, which is what I'm trying to say, to put it bluntly. And countless other factors, including rejection, lead them to become bitter like the guy in the video. He's an extreme case, but if you look around the internet there are places where men vent similar emotions. Like mentioned in that video, there are apparently special forums dedicated to hating women, go figure. But my point isn't that men are wired to be ego-maniacs or to think that women are inferior, these come later. Rather my point is that the male brain is different compared to the female brain. I believe the way they get stimulated varies.

For example, I doubt most men would mind if their potential mate was just a nurse, waitress or a book keeper or heck, even still lived with their mother despite being past their 25. Would that be true in case of women? If she had a choice, how much of a difference would it make to a woman if she could choose a male with a highly successful career, a doctor or a businessman, or a guy still stuck living with his parents or working in McDonald's.

Someone also conducted some experiment where they had a guy ask for sex from random women, and a woman ask for sex from random men, and of course, the men agreed, the women didn't. I can't find it right now though, maybe somebody could help me with it.


QuoteMy country is similar, and it's also quite backwards in these matters. Sexist and homophobic.

:|

High five?

Melusine

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 08:28:31 AM
While I understand your perspective, I tend to agree with Sheoldred on a more practical level.

It's easy to espouse these egalitarian views on a theoretical level, but in practice, a "straight feminine man" is only fooling himself if he actually believes that the majority of feminist women (or women in general, for that matter) are so open-minded as to not factor in traits of "masculinity" in their own dating partners.  I'm certain many will disagree with me on a philosophical level - which I agree, is quite unfortunate for the more effeminate straight men out there.  While one could certainly make the case that this is due to deeply internalized gender roles even among feminist women, it is my belief that many women simply tend to find traditionally masculine traits as "attractive" (and why should that be discouraged if that is their preference?).  As was mentioned, there are certainly women who are exceptions to this rule, but suggesting that these individuals represent a true diversity of thought only trivializes how rare it actually is for women to actively 'seek out' effeminate, straight men as a first choice.

How much of this is due to societal influence is often a point of contention.  Purely my personal thoughts - I am not quite sure this can be entirely attributed to social factors alone, though it most certainly plays a significant role.

I'm not kidding myself by thinking we're in a purely enlightened society where "feminine" straight men have a massive appeal. A majority of women does prefer what their culture deems "masculine". And I'm one of them. I love big, muscular, hairy, bearded men. And of course, personal attraction has a lot to do with what society deems attractive. It's not a preference divorced of social context.

But you say women "simply tend to" find "traditionally masculine" men attractive, without gender roles factoring much in their decision. How is this possible, when "traditional masculinity" changes in different places and times? Fifty years ago, the quintessentially masculine man in my country would have to have a mustache, otherwise he was ridiculed. Nowadays, having a mustache makes you look outdated and old, according to the twenty-somethings of my country. My grandad still has a mustache because he feels shaving it would make him "effeminate".

Women have the right to be attracted to traditionally masculine men, but again, it's not an issue of biology. It's impossible, when what is traditionally masculine changes so much.

A man, even a straight man, whose personality is deemed by others as "feminine" has the option to suppress his individuality at the cost of his emotional health, or stay who he is and accept that he has fewer prospects to be loved. Since I'm not in his shoes, I cannot judge what would be best for him, neither to condemn him for whatever decision he makes. I can only try to change the minds of others so they can become more accepting.

Melusine

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
Being sort of a tomboy yourself(right? :P) there's little doubt you've met more women alike yourself. But girls become tomboys for various reasons, don't they? Perhaps some simply matured fast enough to realise what an awful scramble it is to try always look as pretty as a doll while judging others. Quite a few tomboys told me they can barely stand other women and simply hang out with men, and being constantly surrounded by men shapes their own habits and outlooks eventually, its a natural adaption. Or they had insecurities, and by the time they lost them they were already quite used to their tomboy lifestyle. But I don't really have enough info to work with myself either, we can only know so many people out of millions.

I wouldn't exactly call myself a tomboy. I enjoy stereotypically feminine things like skirts, kittens and romance novels.  :P

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
Oh no, you misunderstood me. They're not wired to view women as 'inferior' but its not unheard of that people say men think with their dicks, which is what I'm trying to say, to put it bluntly. And countless other factors, including rejection, lead them to become bitter like the guy in the video. He's an extreme case, but if you look around the internet there are places where men vent similar emotions. Like mentioned in that video, there are apparently special forums dedicated to hating women, go figure. But my point isn't that men are wired to be ego-maniacs or to think that women are inferior, these come later. Rather my point is that the male brain is different compared to the female brain. I believe the way they get stimulated varies.

There's a phenomenon called "neuroplasticity". It refers to the brain's ability to change and adapt throughout life, according to experiences and stimuli. If male and female brains appear different, it is often because men and women are trained from a very young age to be capable at different things, much like a person who weightlifts with the right arm will develop muscles only on that arm.

Something funny about the "men think with their dicks" aphorism: it's not universal. In ancient Greece and (in a lesser degree) Rome, for example, it was thought that women were so lustful that they literally thought with their vaginas. That was, after all, the reason to confine them within the house. They were too lustful to participate in politics and decision making. On the other hand, men were supposed to be self-contained and rational.

Nowadays, we say men think with their dicks. How peculiar it is that no-one has proposed to exclude men from decision making and politics because of that reason. After all, if men can't think rationally (and admit it themselves) they should let women be the bosses, right?  >:) Or is this just an excuse to allow men to cheat left and right and blame it on biology? Hmmm...

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
For example, I doubt most men would mind if their potential mate was just a nurse, waitress or a book keeper or heck, even still lived with their mother despite being past their 25. Would that be true in case of women? If she had a choice, how much of a difference would it make to a woman if she could choose a male with a highly successful career, a doctor or a businessman, or a guy still stuck living with his parents or working in McDonald's.

Someone also conducted some experiment where they had a guy ask for sex from random women, and a woman ask for sex from random men, and of course, the men agreed, the women didn't. I can't find it right now though, maybe somebody could help me with it.

Yes, it's true that men wouldn't mind if their female mate was financially less secure. More women than men would mind. Still, this is largely because women have been prevented historically from holding property and making their own money, so the way to find prosperity would be through a wealthy husband. Even today, the wealth is mostly in male hands.

As for sex with random men...you do realize that, if the man turns out to be a rapist, abuser or even a killer, the woman will be blamed for being careless, right? It's been drilled to our heads since birth to beware of strange men. I doubt a man has the same fears, at least in such a degree. Also, women don't want to have sex with random men because these random men often call us sluts afterwards.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
:|

High five?

High five.  :-\

Valthazar

#28
Quote from: Melusine on October 07, 2014, 08:59:06 AMAnd of course, personal attraction has a lot to do with what society deems attractive. It's not a preference divorced of social context.

I'm referring to attraction in the subconscious sense - that a person doesn't make a conscious choice about.  For instance, regardless of greater society's views, many women are naturally aroused and drawn to men with a deep voice, or go weak at the knees instinctively at the realization that her man can 'protect' her due to his strength (even though the empirical importance of such masculine strength really has no role in today's relationships due to the presence of police and rule of law).  To the contrary, I don't think very many straight man experience such thoughts of attraction about a woman's ability to physically "protect him" no matter how gender-neutral we try to be.

Or on the other hand, social experiments reveal how time and time again, many women tend to develop desire towards men who are deemed attractive and popular by other women.  Even physically unattractive men (based on conducted surveys) were deemed attractive and desirable by women when he was seen interacting as the center of attention amongst other women.  A sociobiologist would explain that this is an innate evolutionary tendency where a man's influence within the tribe spoke volumes of his dominance.

And related to that, it goes without saying how the vast majority of straight women tend to be drawn to dominant male partners.  Even here on E, I have seen posts from more submissive, effeminate straight males describing how difficult it is to find dominant women interested in them.  This is an unfortunate situation, without a doubt, but it speaks volumes about this topic.

Quote from: Melusine on October 07, 2014, 08:59:06 AMBut you say women "simply tend to" find "traditionally masculine" men attractive, without gender roles factoring much in their decision. How is this possible, when "traditional masculinity" changes in different places and times? Fifty years ago, the quintessentially masculine man in my country would have to have a mustache, otherwise he was ridiculed. Nowadays, having a mustache makes you look outdated and old, according to the twenty-somethings of my country. My grandad still has a mustache because he feels shaving it would make him "effeminate".

Like you said, A moustache is style - essentially a fashion, just like one's clothing, hairstyle, etc. 

In the past, a beard or moustache conveyed "masculine maturity," and lacking it conveyed weakness and lack of manhood.  Today, one can argue that having an overgrown beard as an adult man conveys the same qualities of weakness, immaturity, and lack of responsibility (such as not having a job, being lazy, etc.) that were attributed to not having a moustache/beard in the past.  Styles may change, but the behaviors prided in men remain the same - self-assurance, strength of character, leadership, etc.  A vast majority of women today, and in the past, have always been attracted to these traits.

Sheoldred

QuoteI'm referring to attraction in the subconscious sense - that a person doesn't make a conscious choice about.  For instance, regardless of greater society's views, many women are naturally aroused and drawn to men with a deep voice, or go weak at the knees instinctively at the realization that her man can 'protect' her due to his strength (even though the empirical importance of such masculine strength really has no role in today's relationships due to the presence of police and rule of law).  To the contrary, I don't think very many straight man experience such thoughts of attraction about a woman's ability to physically "protect him" no matter how gender-neutral we try to be.

Or on the other hand, social experiments reveal how time and time again, many women tend to develop desire towards men who are deemed attractive and popular by other women.  Even physically unattractive men (based on conducted surveys) were deemed attractive and desirable by women when he was seen interacting as the center of attention amongst other women.  A sociobiologist would explain that this is an innate evolutionary tendency where a man's influence within the tribe spoke volumes of his dominance.

And related to that, it goes without saying how the vast majority of straight women tend to be drawn to dominant male partners.  Even here on E, I have seen posts from more submissive, effeminate straight males describing how difficult it is to find dominant women interested in them.  This is an unfortunate situation, without a doubt, but it speaks volumes about this topic.

Yes, couldn't have said it better myself! This is the wiring I speak of, aside from men being prone to objectifying women due to their natural predisposition towards being more visually stimulated, and less caring of other factors. Like whether the woman holds a certain status in the society, whether she can provide for him, and so forth.

And yes, I do agree wholly that the popularity of the male can make up for any 'flaws' and even turn them into his strengths.

Quite a few women were in awe of Tim Curry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc80tFJpTuo

But he does have an amazing voice.


QuoteLike you said, A moustache is style - essentially a fashion, just like one's clothing, hairstyle, etc.

In the past, a beard or moustache conveyed "masculine maturity," and lacking it conveyed weakness and lack of manhood.  Today, one can argue that having an overgrown beard as an adult man conveys the same qualities of weakness, immaturity, and lack of responsibility (such as not having a job, being lazy, etc.) that were attributed to not having a moustache/beard in the past.  Styles may change, but the behaviors prided in men remain the same - self-assurance, strength of character, leadership, etc.  A vast majority of women today, and in the past, have always been attracted to these traits.

Likewise Romans shaved!

Melusine

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
I'm referring to attraction in the subconscious sense - that a person doesn't make a conscious choice about.  For instance, regardless of greater society's views, many women are naturally aroused and drawn to men with a deep voice, or go weak at the knees instinctively at the realization that her man can 'protect' her due to his strength (even though the empirical importance of such masculine strength really has no role in today's relationships due to the presence of police and rule of law).  To the contrary, I don't think very many straight man experience such thoughts of attraction about a woman's ability to physically "protect him" no matter how gender-neutral we try to be.

Since when is the subconscious not influenced by society? The voice that tells me "you have cellulite and you're ugly" whenever I look at my ass in the mirror is the subconscious. My conscious voice tells me that cellulite is perfectly normal. Alas, ever since I was a little child, media has shown me women without visible cellulite before I could even process the images mentally! No amount of rationalization and conscious thought will remove this conditioning which is, of course, social.

I like how you're phrasing it. "Regardless of greater society's views, women go weak at the knees when they realize their man can physically protect them." As if this ideal goes against society's views, and the brave women who espouce it are unaffected by society! I want my man to be strong because I've always been told I was weak, and physical confrontations with men paralyze me even though I wish I was braver! We cannot trully know what women and men "really" want unless you remove all societal influences, and that's impossible. Or, unless you promote a less judgemental society without an ideal model of men and women.

The fact that such men (who want to be physically protected) exist even as a minority should tell you that it's not hardwired into our brain to be this or that.

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
Or on the other hand, social experiments reveal how time and time again, many women tend to develop desire towards men who are deemed attractive and popular by other women.  Even physically unattractive men (based on conducted surveys) were deemed attractive and desirable by women when he was seen interacting as the center of attention amongst other women.  A sociobiologist would explain that this is an innate evolutionary tendency where a man's influence within the tribe spoke volumes of his dominance.

Or maybe, a man who's popular with women (especially a woman's close friends) shows that he can interact amicably and treat them like people. I trust my friends' judgement. If they like him, he must be something, right? Maybe it has nothing to do with dominance and tribes.

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
And related to that, it goes without saying how the vast majority of straight women tend to be drawn to dominant male partners.  Even here on E, I have seen posts from more submissive, effeminate straight males describing how difficult it is to find dominant women interested in them.  This is an unfortunate situation, without a doubt, but it speaks volumes about this topic.

Of course it goes without saying and I never said the opposite. I'm just trying to find a reason behind it. Can it be that it's because women are hardwired to be this and men that? Or maybe it's because society influences the sexes to find different things attractive, which also accounts for the minorities who have different tastes and aren't as small as one might think?

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
Like you said, A moustache is style - essentially a fashion, just like one's clothing, hairstyle, etc. 

In the past, a beard or moustache conveyed "masculine maturity," and lacking it conveyed weakness and lack of manhood.  Today, one can argue that having an overgrown beard as an adult man conveys the same qualities of weakness, immaturity, and lack of responsibility (such as not having a job, being lazy, etc.) that were attributed to not having a moustache/beard in the past.  Styles may change, but the behaviors prided in men remain the same - self-assurance, strength of character, leadership, etc.  A vast majority of women today, and in the past, have always been attracted to these traits.

Fashion plays a big part in gender roles. If a man went out in a miniskirt, fishnet stockings and go-go boots, what would we think of him? Self assurance and strength of character are traits people are attracted to regardless of gender, though. It's just that strength of character might mean different things for men and women.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 09:39:22 AM
Yes, couldn't have said it better myself! This is the wiring I speak of, aside from men being prone to objectifying women due to their natural predisposition towards being more visually stimulated, and less caring of other factors. Like whether the woman holds a certain status in the society, whether she can provide for him, and so forth.

Dude, if you think women can't be visually stimulated just as much as men, you've never been an thirteen year old girl swooning over Johnny Depp's ass. I mean I really don't know what to tell you. Believe me, women desire eyecandy just like men do. The fact is, the media doesn't cater to us as much -- because, apparently, we don't want it!! What? "Women aren't visually stimulated" is a baffling myth for me, right up there with "Women can get laid more easily" and "Women don't want sex as much as men do".

And please, please don't say "Okay maybe women want eyecandy but not as much as men". Just believe me on this. I've been a woman for 23 years, I'd know.

Oniya

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
In the past, a beard or moustache conveyed "masculine maturity," and lacking it conveyed weakness and lack of manhood.  Today, one can argue that having an overgrown beard as an adult man conveys the same qualities of weakness, immaturity, and lack of responsibility (such as not having a job, being lazy, etc.) that were attributed to not having a moustache/beard in the past.  Styles may change, but the behaviors prided in men remain the same - self-assurance, strength of character, leadership, etc.  A vast majority of women today, and in the past, have always been attracted to these traits.

I will note that you reference an 'overgrown' beard.  I think that would fall under the category of 'lack of personal grooming' as far as why it conveys weakness, immaturity and lack of responsibility.

Slightly amusing story regarding facial hair.  Back in Ohio, we were in Amish country - traditional Amish, not the stuff you see in tourist magazines.  Taking pictures of them was Not Done, and there was even a certain amount of leeway given with regards to government IDs.  Now, without a photo, some of the younger ones hit on the idea of taking an older relative's ID, and trying to use it to buy beer and/or cigarettes, but it turns out that there's a rule that they aren't allowed to grow a beard until they turn 18.  (You find these things out when one of your neighbors has dated an Amish man who 'jumped the fence'.)

So, savvy cashiers approached by a clean-shaven Amish man knew that the ID saying they were 21 belonged to someone else.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sheoldred

QuoteDude, if you think women can't be visually stimulated just as much as men, you've never been an thirteen year old girl swooning over Johnny Depp's ass. I mean I really don't know what to tell you. Believe me, women desire eyecandy just like men do. The fact is, the media doesn't cater to us as much -- because, apparently, we don't want it!! What? "Women aren't visually stimulated" is a baffling myth for me, right up there with "Women can get laid more easily" and "Women don't want sex as much as men do".

And please, please don't say "Okay maybe women want eyecandy but not as much as men". Just believe me on this. I've been a woman for 23 years, I'd know.

I've had other women tell me the same when I made such claims. What am I to infer from this then? :c That women are better at inhibiting themselves? That they do take other factors into consideration more seriously than men? Such as status, for example.

Melusine

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 10:11:31 AM
I've had other women tell me the same when I made such claims. What am I to infer from this then? :c That women are better at inhibiting themselves? That they do take other factors into consideration more seriously than men? Such as status, for example.

First of all, before you try to infer anything, believe them wholeheartedly and don't make assumptions that contradict them. Why are you making claims about a social group when members of this very group say the exact opposite? Where did this stupid assumption even come from? Did men just dream it up one day and made it law, without input from women themselves? This isn't targeted at you personally, but it's a frustration I have.

Maybe we're better at inhibiting ourselves, I don't know. Certainly, being called a "slut" if you express open sexual appraisal of a man can be a powerful inhibitor.

Status? We're talking about eyecandy here. I don't have to check his bank account to appreciate his ass. Or are you trying to imply that eyecandy is not the only factor by which women choose a partner? I'd like to say "obviously" but immature women exist. If a person tries to find a partner and the biggest/only factor is their appearance, this person is a fool. And both women and men can be fools.

Valthazar

Quote from: Melusine on October 07, 2014, 09:58:43 AMSince when is the subconscious not influenced by society? The voice that tells me "you have cellulite and you're ugly" whenever I look at my ass in the mirror is the subconscious. My conscious voice tells me that cellulite is perfectly normal. Alas, ever since I was a little child, media has shown me women without visible cellulite before I could even process the images mentally! No amount of rationalization and conscious thought will remove this conditioning which is, of course, social.

I'm just having trouble understanding your argument of how societal influence can have an effect on sexual arousal.  I have had several many women tell me that a man's deep soothing voice can cause arousal.  Or as another example a friend mentioned - a strong, muscular man wrapping his arms around her, making her feel protected, often can end up making her wet.

Second of all, I was always under the impression that "what causes us to become physically aroused is biological."  In other words, we can't change what makes us aroused.  This was the rationale that was thankfully used to gain greater tolerance and acceptance of LGBT individuals. 

I would think we can all agree that what factors cause us to become sexually aroused have a biological basis (to at least some degree).

Quote from: Melusine on October 07, 2014, 09:58:43 AMOr maybe, a man who's popular with women (especially a woman's close friends) shows that he can interact amicably and treat them like people. I trust my friends' judgement. If they like him, he must be something, right? Maybe it has nothing to do with dominance and tribes.

This is a gender specific thing though.

The vast majority of men don't base who they are attracted to on what other men think.  Like Sheoldred has crudely described it, "men think with their dicks" in the sense that if a man considers a woman attractive, that's all that matters.  Whereas for the vast majority of women, attraction is not based so much on physical appearance as much as his perceived attraction to other women.

On a lighter note, it's one of the oldest bar jokes that actually has some truth behind it.  If there are two women sitting together at a table (one that you are interested in, the other not-so-much), it's actually more effective to try to converse with the woman you are not attracted to.  Even if the other woman initially showed no interest, noticing that her friend and this stranger are developing a good connection will more often than not cause her to also want to develop a connection with him also.

Check out this social experiment (prank), and notice how her opinion of him takes a 180 degree turn upon seeing other women interested in him (aka his fame).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHIB5osmZGA

Quote from: Melusine on October 07, 2014, 09:58:43 AMFashion plays a big part in gender roles. If a man went out in a miniskirt, fishnet stockings and go-go boots, what would we think of him? Self assurance and strength of character are traits people are attracted to regardless of gender, though. It's just that strength of character might mean different things for men and women.

As I already mentioned, the fashion itself is not what is important to analyze.  Rather, what is important to examine are the traits or behaviors that any given fashion (in any time period) suggests about the wearer.  If you look historically, while styles have varied considerably, women (by and large) have tended to identify certain common values or characteristics in the men that they found attractive.

Again, this is very much a gender issue.  "Confidence" - which is what I essentially meant by self-assurance is predominantly an important trait that women look for in men, and far less frequently the other way around.  By and large, women - even extremely professionally successful women - are drawn to men who exhibit natural leadership qualities.  I'm not saying this is a good thing, but we need to accept these realities if we are discussing this topic in any accurate sense.

consortium11

Quote from: Melusine on October 07, 2014, 10:24:20 AM
First of all, before you try to infer anything, believe them wholeheartedly and don't make assumptions that contradict them. Why are you making claims about a social group when members of this very group say the exact opposite? Where did this stupid assumption even come from? Did men just dream it up one day and made it law, without input from women themselves? This isn't targeted at you personally, but it's a frustration I have.

Because science seemed to say so.

This study and this study were the two leading studies I'm aware of. There are certain flaws with both studies (for example, both don't take any account of where on the hormonal cycle the female participants were) but as I understand it the consensus position in science remains roughly the same.

Sheoldred

QuoteThere's a phenomenon called "neuroplasticity". It refers to the brain's ability to change and adapt throughout life, according to experiences and stimuli. If male and female brains appear different, it is often because men and women are trained from a very young age to be capable at different things, much like a person who weightlifts with the right arm will develop muscles only on that arm.

That's true, but I think you're overestimating the capacities of the brain. Well, perhaps in theory anybody could become a rocket scientist if the right methods are applied and whatnot but in the end, as far as I know from my genetics classes, an alarming number of traits are inherited, and while you can become better at math and all that, IQ is fairly genetic. Psychologists have done tests with twins to confirm this.

The only thing that is extremely flexible is memory which is why you can sometimes meet people with a PhD that make you wonder how did they ever make it.

Kushiel

Quote from: consortium11 on October 07, 2014, 10:40:06 AM
This study

It also doesn't seem to even touch upon social influences at all. All this study proved is that men have a greater (vaguely) biological reaction in the brain, without explaining why this is the case.

If you performed a study comparing the stress levels of a people attending job interviews with those of people reading a post on Eliquiy, I think you would find that people at job interviews have more stress. Why? Because attending a job interview has more social impact. The human brain attaches significance to the event and becomes distressed at the possibility of failure.

The same could be said of men looking at porn. They might get more "aroused" than women (if you can even quantify arousal) but the reasons why are more likely to be social than purely natural, in my opinion. Men learn that they are expected to judge women based on their appearance, whereas women grow up being told they need to find a "good husband" who will take good care of them and all that garbage.

Thus, it would be pertinent to point out that not all people are affected by social pressure to the same extent. There will always be hornier than average women and men completely uninterested in sex. Making sweeping statements like "Science seemed to say so" is foolish, since the very nature of science encourages us to challenge and question studies, not just swallow them like a duck swallows bread crusts.

N.B. the second study you linked was inaccessible without login details.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 10:56:46 AM
That's true, but I think you're overestimating the capacities of the brain. Well, perhaps in theory anybody could become a rocket scientist if the right methods are applied and whatnot but in the end, as far as I know from my genetics classes, an alarming number of traits are inherited, and while you can become better at math and all that, IQ is fairly genetic. Psychologists have done tests with twins to confirm this.

The only thing that is extremely flexible is memory which is why you can sometimes meet people with a PhD that make you wonder how did they ever make it.

Situation: A man with a high IQ leaves his house on a dark, cloudy day without a rain coat. On his way home, he gets soaked by a sudden downpour. Walking two metres behind him is a woman with lower than average IQ, who remains dry and warm wrapped up in her rain coat. Which one of these two people is more intelligent?

Melusine

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 10:38:02 AM
I'm just having trouble understanding your argument of how societal influence can have an effect on sexual arousal.  I have had several many women tell me that a man's deep soothing voice can cause arousal.  Or as another example a friend mentioned - a strong, muscular man wrapping his arms around her, making her feel protected, often can end up making her wet.

Second of all, I was always under the impression that "what causes us to become physically aroused is biological."  In other words, we can't change what makes us aroused.  This was the rationale that was thankfully used to gain greater tolerance and acceptance of LGBT individuals.

I would think we can all agree that what factors cause us to become sexually aroused have a biological basis (to at least some degree).

Sexual arousal largely has to do with what we find attractive. What we find attractive and what society deems attractive very often overlap. I know women who are sexually attracted to slender guys, or fat guys. Upbringing, societal influences, etc. They can influence what we find attractive beyond biology. I don't rule out biology completely, but I don't think it's as pervasive as it's thought. Also, sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual arousal. And even if LGBT people were LGBT because of social influences, they'd still have the right to love, marry and have equal rights.

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 10:38:02 AM
This is a gender specific thing though.

The vast majority of men don't base who they are attracted to on what other men think.  Like Sheoldred has crudely described it, "men think with their dicks" in the sense that if a man considers a woman attractive, that's all that matters.  Whereas for the vast majority of women, attraction is not based so much on physical appearance as much as his perceived attraction to other women.

On a lighter note, it's one of the oldest bar jokes that actually has some truth behind it.  If there are two women sitting together at a table (one that you are interested in, the other not-so-much), it's actually more effective to try to converse with the woman you are not attracted to.  Even if the other woman initially showed no interest, noticing that her friend and this stranger are developing a good connection will more often than not cause her to also want to develop a connection with him also.

Check out this social experiment (prank), and notice how her opinion of him takes a 180 degree turn upon seeing other women interested in him (aka his fame).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHIB5osmZGA

Until I see this on some peer-reviewed scientific paper and not a college prank video (which is about a very specific cultural group anyway and is emphatically not an experiment), I won't believe it's anything other than a stereotype. Yes, some women behave like this. Some don't.

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 10:38:02 AM
As I already mentioned, the fashion itself is not what is important to analyze.  Rather, what is important to examine are the traits or behaviors that any given fashion (in any time period) suggests about the wearer.  If you look historically, while styles have varied considerably, women (by and large) have tended to identify certain common values or characteristics in the men that they found attractive.

Again, this is very much a gender issue.  "Confidence" - which is what I essentially meant by self-assurance is predominantly an important trait that women look for in men, and far less frequently the other way around.  By and large, women - even extremely professionally successful women - are drawn to men who exhibit natural leadership qualities.  I'm not saying this is a good thing, but we need to accept these realities if we are discussing this topic in any accurate sense.

I accept these realities. I just don't accept they're unchangeable biological destiny.

rou

#39
Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
And related to that, it goes without saying how the vast majority of straight women tend to be drawn to dominant male partners.  Even here on E, I have seen posts from more submissive, effeminate straight males describing how difficult it is to find dominant women interested in them.  This is an unfortunate situation, without a doubt, but it speaks volumes about this topic.

Once again I still haven't read the whole thing, but I want to respond to little bits and bobs. I'm probably totally ruining the flow of the discussion.

There are more submissive personalities than dominant... anywhere. In either gender. Gender roles perpetuate that the woman ought to be submissive and the man ought to be dominant. And yet, in my personal experience, I've hardly met anyone other than relatively submissive boys. My ongoing emphasis of wanting to play the submissive woman opposite a more truly dominant man is that I'm tired of being more dominant, in life and roleplay both.

Many subs, of either gender, bemoan that there are not enough (good) dom/mes around.

edit:

Probably a really stupid and petty thing for me to pick at. I agree that mainstream society hails feminine women and masculine men and therefore those things are by default more attractive to many more people. I have found that my attraction towards anything that differs has grown through exposing myself to alternate media and lifestyles and the like.

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

consortium11

Quote from: Kushiel on October 07, 2014, 11:10:13 AM
It also doesn't seem to even touch upon social influences at all. All this study proved is that men have a greater (vaguely) biological reaction in the brain, without explaining why this is the case.

Sorry, I didn't think we were debating the cause, rather whether the effect actually existed (Melusine's points about women being just as visually stimulated as men and where this idea that men are more stimulated by visuals than women came from). As above, science indicates they are... and while the nature of science is to question findings it's also to accept them if no evidence comes discrediting them. Outside of the hormonal issue previously mentioned I'm not aware of any studies that contradict those findings in the 10 or so years since they took place; disagreeing with peer-reviewed science simply because you don't like the conclusions is getting into the realm of science denialism.

As for the cause, the Nature study (PDF here) makes clear that as of now we don't know (and I don't believe there's been any real progress since on that point although if someone can point to studies I'd happily read them) whether it's nurture or nature. But it should be noted that women experienced less arousal than men even when they self-reported a higher level; if social pressures were the reason they had "adapted" (for lack of a better word) to be less aroused by audio-visual stimulation then you'd expect that filter through to their self-reporting as well; the evidence indicates it didn't. Of course, that's far from conclusive and I wouldn't make any conclusions on nurture vs nature from that, but it's a starting point.

Valthazar

Quote from: Melusine on October 07, 2014, 11:16:01 AMUntil I see this on some peer-reviewed scientific paper and not a college prank video (which is about a very specific cultural group anyway and is emphatically not an experiment), I won't believe it's anything other than a stereotype. Yes, some women behave like this. Some don't.

This journal article discusses the biological basis of different mating strategies among men and women (also known as dating preferences), as well as the biological basis of differing short and long-term goals in mating.

Here's another journal article that discusses the role of male and female hormones in creating differing mating strategies among men and women.  Take a look at the table included in this article for an overview of how differing traits appeal to the majority of men vs. the majority of women.

Quote from: roulette on October 07, 2014, 11:38:23 AMI've hardly met anyone other than relatively submissive boys. My ongoing emphasis of wanting to play the submissive woman opposite a more truly dominant man is that I'm tired of being more dominant, in life and roleplay both.

Maybe some day we should write a roleplay together.  ;)

Steampunkette

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
That's not true. Hypothetically speaking, if I could transform into the hottest woman conceivable in my own mind, I'd totally objectify myself before a mirror. ;)
Doesn't work. You still have perspective. You still recognize yourself as a discreet quantity of humanity. You still have emotions and thoughts and reasoning and beliefs and fears and everything else.

If you had a severe disassociative disorder you could manage it. But that's because the person in the mirror wouldn't be you, it would be -that- woman in the mirror. As duodimensional as Power Girl or Spider-Man.

Speak
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AMing of which, for the sake of the topic I decided to share a specific detail about myself that my ex found appalling. If I need some alone time with myself, so to speak, I always think about female parts. Not that they'd be separate from the woman but I basically focus on parts and probably objectify the female body, yes. Heck, sometimes it makes it easier to think of fantasy races(elves, draenei etc) for me instead of real people. That, or porn actresses. However, I cannot ever bring myself to masturbate to people that I know - not even actresses. If I've seen the actress in a proper movie, not some mindless porn, I just can't do it. The ex I mentioned got mad at me because she was probably insulted by the fact that I can't toy with myself using her pictures or imagining her and its pretty important for a woman to be acknowledged as beautiful, isnt it? Even with her full consent I just somehow couldn't do it. Not that I had a strong moral stand on it, my conscious just didn't let me. It simply felt 'wrong' to create a duplicate of the real person in my own mind and make them act how I'd find it pleasing. On the other hand, just focusing on the body without giving it a name seemed much easier. Whenever I do give the woman a personality, its a fictional woman of my own imagination, usually not even entirely human(again, elf or some persian princess or something like that).
So you only objectify women who are objectified on your behalf by others, their autonomy and self-perspective removed before you interact with them. Interesting.
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
Don't you dare criticise Conan the Barbarian, it's one of the most epic movies of all time! OF ALL TIME! It's sacred. >:c
You seem to have completely missed the point, there...
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
Honestly, all the sequels went downhill, so I'm not sure if this specifically has anything to do with women being portrayed as 'less' of a character. But my gut feeling is telling you're probably right. Perhaps they thought the male audience would feel unnerved if a woman was put in such a position of power that she was the one offered male slaves, not the other way around.
More or less, yes. Though I posit it as an unconscious decision. Something they just didn't THINK about. The female perspective wasn't important to them. Her motivations, introspection, and treatment were irrelevant. All that mattered was she had a problem and was going to overcome it. Where in a male-led piece the introspection, motivation, and such are all considered valid for exploration. Examining a man's reasoning is important. Examining a woman's reasoning is not.

At least, that's my takeaway from the movie... Also Red Sonja was not a Sequel. Yes, she appeared in the Conan Comics in 1973, but Conan did not appear in her film. Arnold plays the part of the swordsman Kalidor, a separate character in the comic universe.
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
I, for one, would totally RP with a powerful mistress on the other hand :p.
The point is elsewhere. Whether she was given slaves is just one aspect of her background and motivation which was not explored in the film.
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
What you're saying is true, women are more objectified as sexual objects. But I think this won't ever change either unless we all became hermaphrodites because of the way male and female psyche works, and due to how the culture and society likes to define sex roles and further empower the stereotypes ,it becomes even harder. Men will never know what it's like to be objectified at its worst, and women won't know the pressures men are under, and the expectations, and the impact of the social stigmas when you're labelled a complete loser. Statistically, men suicide more, do they not?
Male/Female psyche is a red herring. You can tell by going around the world and visiting different cultures throughout history that did not have a powerful distinction between masculine and feminine societal roles. Hell, we've only recently come to understand that half of all Viking Warriors were women because our archaeologists had been looking at the historical period through the eyes of Englishmen in the 1800s. They'd looked into the graves of Vikings and if they found a blue and round brooch the body was marked female, because female married women wore blue oval brooches.

It wasn't until we started checking bone density and structure for the chemical markers that separate high estrogen from high testosterone and realized that half of all vikings, regardless of what brooch they wore, were women.

Western Culture is very gender segregated. We can change that by working to undo the divisions in our society and in our media. Media being the single most powerful teaching tool in history. We don't need to "Become Hermaphrodites", which is a really disturbing thing to say by the way, in order to work toward gender equality in society. We just need to change the culture and attitudes. And we do that by making things socially unacceptable, by putting peer pressure on our friends and family and the people around us not to do things that we come to recognize are harmful.

Like sexual objectification.
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
Linked these videos to my straight female friend, she thinks these videos are unfunny and unsexy. I'm quite interested to know why is it that you think you're attracted to men dancing like women? Perhaps the movements this Chris Koo is performing are actually universal and unisex at their very core but our cultures have distorted our view and raised us to think only women are meant to act like this? But the body language is extremely effeminate, is it not? The movements seem to convey submission to me.
Quote

You only have the one straight female friend? Sorry. Sorry! Just struck me as the "One of my friends is black" thing.  ;)

And yes. The body language is effeminate according to modern standards of femininity and masculinity. I can't tell you whether it would be considered feminine two thousand years ago, though. But let's look at your phrasing and see how it shapes the conversation.

"Why is it that you think you're attracted to men dancing like women"

Well I think it because I am attracted to that slender well coordinated young man's body type, movements, and expressions. His movements show skill, talent, knowledge of body, and confidence in himself. All qualities that are admired in a sexual partner almost universally, even in the animal kingdom. The latter portion of the question is troubling, though. Men Dancing Like Women. Very binaristic and segregates body movement itself into two modes. The Male and the Female.  Is it men dancing like women? I liked how NSync and the Backstreet boys danced when I was young. And before them it was other boy bands. Did they dance "Like Women"?

Do all women dance like Beyonce? Or is it a dance that she performed  as a unique expression of who she is, an insight into personality through movement? I know -I- can't dance like that. Neither can most of the women, men, nonbinary, agender, genderfluid... honestly no one I know can dance like that. Of any gender. So what makes it "Like a Woman"?

As for Cazwell and his boys, do they dance like women? I don't feel like they did. What would be the point of trying to dance like a woman to entice a gay man? It didn't really come across as female, though the trappings of how women are objectified in music videos were there, thus the reason I used it as an example. But for the most part I'd say they danced like dudes in a club would. Mostly standing in one spot and rolling their shoulders and upper body in time with the music.

For Submissive imagery the camera is usually above, looking down on the target, often with the target prone and on their back. For Cazwell's video the image was dead on level with the dancers, all the better to barely show their briefs in-frame and give the illusion they weren't wearing anything at all. At some points the dancer's heads were at the top of the screen, indicating they were taller than the camera operator or viewed -from- a lower position looking upward.

Were the dancers sexually open in both videos? Oh, yes. Definitely. The videos were meant to entice, to draw the viewer in and find the dancer sexy. That is where the "Submissiveness" and "Femininity" comes from. We see, as a culture, women as submissive and sexually available in basically all forms of media. When a man takes on that role of being sexually available, but not directly pursuing, we suddenly see him, though the cultural lens of our perspective, as being feminine. Girly. Submissive. But when you deconstruct the video, deconstruct the dance, it's not there.
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
Compare it to this video -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIvOf0Xmzo

Tatum conveys more masculinity while still wooing women. You think Chris Koo's dance is sexier?
What makes it more masculine? The show of strength when he lifts the chair? The way he aggressively bumps and grinds against imaginary sexual partners? The hand down his pants suggesting he's grabbing his dick? Aside from lifting a chair, Cazwell's Ice Cream Truck had the same imagery and was viewed as feminine just a few moments ago.

He's definitely more aggressive. He's not presenting himself, he's going out on the prowl. He is using his sexuality directly, rather than enticing you to come to him. Deconstruct the dance itself and compare it to the Ice Cream Truck and you'll see that's the difference between a "Submissive" gay man and a "Masculine" straight man.

And that perspective does not exist in a vacuum. It's a culturally enforced identity.
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AMAnd would you say this is just as sexy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7oGx2dImE8
Hell no. He doesn't move much. Doesn't dance. Sings badly (seriously the man is off key in a falsetto and it doesn't get much more nails-on-a-chalkboard). And doesn't present himself sexually at all.

It's incompatible. Even without the misheard lyrics "Joke" floating over him to reduce him into a cardboard cutout for racists to giggle at.

Now Melusine brings up an incredibly important point. Culture determines what is sexually attractive.

Take a look at modern western feminine beauty. Skinny, tanned, but still shapely and white. Let's not get into issues of movement and speech as they complicate things in a manner that can't be easily covered.

Now let's look at western beauty a century ago. Still skinny, but flat-chested and super-pale white skin. Why were flappers beautiful if they didn't have big boobs and a nice butt, things modern men say are biological signifiers of sexiness, genetically ingrained in men to value in sexual partners?

Let's go back another 50 years. Anyone ever seen Ruben's artwork? Big fat women with big asses and big breasts, skin as white as driven snow with a little pink here and there. What happened that fat was totally sexy as hell but then skinny with no figure was attractive and now skinny with a figure?

The answer? Wealth. The wealthy in the West determine what is sexually attractive. When Ruben was making pictures of corpulent ladies most poor people were skinny and starving. It was only wealthy people who could eat like a horse and get fat. As for the pale skin, a poor woman worked in the fields while a rich woman stayed indoors.

Move it forward to the flappers. Most manual labor was still outdoors, but food was a lot more readily available. Suddenly a woman with temperance in the Prohibition era was seen as the pinnacle of beauty. Pale was still in, and Slender came into vogue. But why small boobs and butt? Because it was seen as modest, unlike the immodest poor folk breeding like rabbits.

Then comes the modern era. Stereotypical women's work is all indoors, so only the wealthy can afford to spend their time lounging on a beach to get a tan. Poor people are fat because of all the cheap foods being laden with saturated fats and unhealthy levels of sugars. It's people of means who can afford the healthy food and keep themselves in shape, now.

Society determines what is perceived as sexually attractive on the large scale. Yes, an individual may not find what is socially considered conventionally attractive sexy themselves. But most people will, because it's the imagery they are bombarded with and the peer pressure they deal with.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Steampunkette

Please excuse my broken and pointless quote pyramid. Apparently I missed an /quote in there somewhere and I can't edit the post.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

rou

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
Linked these videos to my straight female friend, she thinks these videos are unfunny and unsexy. I'm quite interested to know why is it that you think you're attracted to men dancing like women? Perhaps the movements this Chris Koo is performing are actually universal and unisex at their very core but our cultures have distorted our view and raised us to think only women are meant to act like this? But the body language is extremely effeminate, is it not? The movements seem to convey submission to me. Compare it to this video

Another thought I wanted to share. I did not think any of the videos of dancing men were sexy. I think male dancers who dance in a non-provocative way are pretty fucking sexy, but when they strip down and show their rippling muscles, or when they dance in an overtly sexual way, it grosses me out. So neither of the original two links posted, or the Magic Mike thing appealed to me. If women were doing the same thing, I'd think it was pretty awesome.

It could be because for a man to strip himself down so much and put himself in these positions is incredibly unusual to me. I tend to think of men as staying dressed while the women get naked, standing still while the women dance. To have that flipped around could be jarring.

Or it could be that, as a bisexual, I am much more aesthetically attracted to women (and I am) and seeing men in most situations where they're trying to be sexy doesn't much appeal to me. There are exceptions.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 07:37:43 AM
From my experience lesbians tend to look more androgynous while the more feminine women are more likely to be strictly straight but there are exceptions, of course.

I find that actually, when you take a step and become acquainted with queer culture in some ways, your mind is opened up to more. An average heterosexual woman who mostly just hangs out with other heterosexual men and women probably doesn't spend as much time thinking about how they could, conceivably, dress like a boy. If they wanted to. Because that's not a part of their daily conversation. On the other hand, I've found that my original identity of bisexuality and the search for information and support has led me to discover that I don't always need to dress femininely and that I don't necessarily have to love just one person, etc. Exposure to these things, because of my initial identity of nonhetero, has led me to become more open-minded, which could lead me to be a bit more androgynous. That is the correlation I think exists. I think that many more people would fall in different places on the spectrums if they were exposed to it more regularly and understood that it was okay.

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 08:28:31 AM
While I understand your perspective, I tend to agree with Sheoldred on a more practical level.

It's easy to espouse these egalitarian views on a theoretical level, but in practice, a "straight feminine man" is only fooling himself if he actually believes that the majority of feminist women (or women in general, for that matter) are so open-minded as to not factor in traits of "masculinity" in their own dating partners.  I'm certain many will disagree with me on a philosophical level - which I agree, is quite unfortunate for the more effeminate straight men out there.  While one could certainly make the case that this is due to deeply internalized gender roles even among feminist women, it is my belief that many women simply tend to find traditionally masculine traits as "attractive" (and why should that be discouraged if that is their preference?).  As was mentioned, there are certainly women who are exceptions to this rule, but suggesting that these individuals represent a true diversity of thought only trivializes how rare it actually is for women to actively 'seek out' effeminate, straight men as a first choice.

How much of this is due to societal influence is often a point of contention.  Purely my personal thoughts - I am not quite sure this can be entirely attributed to social factors alone, though it most certainly plays a significant role.

Being queer is a lot like this, I think. I wouldn't say being a bit effeminate makes a straight male queer, but that's just how the world works. The majority of people go with the flow of society and don't consider living any other way. When I realized I was bisexual, my dating options did not grow, conversely to the beliefs of many, but they shrank. And I certainly don't feel I have many options of dating women, when most of my options are still men. When I realized I was polyamorous, my options shrank even more. The more unique my identity becomes, the less I fit in with that flow, the less dating options I have. If you differ from the norm, you're going to have less options. That's just reality.

So, yeah. I think feminine men are going to find that their options become a bit more limited, if they're trying to play the game of heteronormativity (not 100% sure if that's the right word to use there). It's unfortunate, and hopefully society can change a bit more to accommodate the differences and true uniqueness of character there is around the world.

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
For example, I doubt most men would mind if their potential mate was just a nurse, waitress or a book keeper or heck, even still lived with their mother despite being past their 25. Would that be true in case of women? If she had a choice, how much of a difference would it make to a woman if she could choose a male with a highly successful career, a doctor or a businessman, or a guy still stuck living with his parents or working in McDonald's.

I'm dubious about this in its full sentiment. I think there is something to be said about the societal roles of men as the providers and women as provided for. But let's be honest — living at home or working at McDonalds tends not to be a selling point for anybody, and as an unemployed 21 year old living at home, I hardly feel comforted that I'm a woman, as if that makes it look better. If that makes any sense?

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 10:38:02 AM
Or as another example a friend mentioned - a strong, muscular man wrapping his arms around her, making her feel protected, often can end up making her wet.

Second of all, I was always under the impression that "what causes us to become physically aroused is biological."  In other words, we can't change what makes us aroused.  This was the rationale that was thankfully used to gain greater tolerance and acceptance of LGBT individuals.

For the first part, I want to say that physical contact and someone's embrace around the body has a lot to do with... Well, physical contact. Are guys who are attracted to women not at all affected when their lover wraps him in a hug? I also personally enjoy anybody whose voice isn't annoying. Some people have better voices than others.

I actually made a thread here at E celebrating the new things people have gotten into since being at E. I have noticed the things that arouse me have, in fact, changed drastically over time, based on my experience with them. I also actively make an effort to modify the things that bother me (aka, making ons out of offs, because it's inconvenient to be repulsed by something so common as anal. Still working on that one.)

QuoteAgain, this is very much a gender issue.  "Confidence" - which is what I essentially meant by self-assurance is predominantly an important trait that women look for in men, and far less frequently the other way around.  By and large, women - even extremely professionally successful women - are drawn to men who exhibit natural leadership qualities.  I'm not saying this is a good thing, but we need to accept these realities if we are discussing this topic in any accurate sense.

Ahahahaha. God, I wish. Okay, within the context of the second half, I gather you might be saying something different than what I took, but... One of the things I hate about society is that we are bombarded with things to feel insecure about... and then told that insecurity is unattractive. How often do you hear that men like "a woman who knows what she wants" and a "strong, confident woman"? Yeah. My personal experience may not be representative of the whole, but I don't think it's a gender thing, there. I am actually extremely frustrated with the bad rep that insecurity gets, because my insecurities have been something that I have to hide to appear more attractive. There is another expectation put on me to pretend that I always love my body and I always know what I'm doing and I don't ever worry if a guy is actually interested in me and his actions are making me feel unsteady. It's generally not okay for me to express emotional vulnerability, because guys don't want to deal with that.

Confidence is sexy!

Likewise, I think guys deal with the same shit. I think that when a guy is uncertain and unsure of himself, he gets a lot of shit for it. Maybe a bit more, because guys have the pressure of not being emotional and to express what is perceived as weakness is an even bigger crime. But I don't think that gap is as big as the perception I took from this quote, or at least it's not quite so easy to say, "Men don't look for confidence in women as much as women look for confidence in men."

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 10:56:46 AM
That's true, but I think you're overestimating the capacities of the brain. Well, perhaps in theory anybody could become a rocket scientist if the right methods are applied and whatnot but in the end, as far as I know from my genetics classes, an alarming number of traits are inherited, and while you can become better at math and all that, IQ is fairly genetic. Psychologists have done tests with twins to confirm this.

The only thing that is extremely flexible is memory which is why you can sometimes meet people with a PhD that make you wonder how did they ever make it.

Also generally untrue, I think. I'm not yet decided on this. I think some people may still have more capacity than others if the same effort was applied, but...

The Growth Mindset

Quote from: Valthazar on October 07, 2014, 12:06:55 PM
Maybe some day we should write a roleplay together.  ;)

;)




In summary, I've been a bit nitpicky about specific points, while sometimes agreeing with some of the concepts behind them. So I want to apologize for that, because I'm not just trying to pick apart everyone's every statement, but when I saw something and thought, "That doesn't sound right to me," I interjected. So, you know. May or may not actually contribute to the conversation. I also realize most of these topics abandoned objectification and we're mostly talking gender roles and the typical experiences of each gender.

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

Sheoldred

QuoteThere are more submissive personalities than dominant... anywhere. In either gender. Gender roles perpetuate that the woman ought to be submissive and the man ought to be dominant. And yet, in my personal experience, I've hardly met anyone other than relatively submissive boys. My ongoing emphasis of wanting to play the submissive woman opposite a more truly dominant man is that I'm tired of being more dominant, in life and roleplay both.

Many subs, of either gender, bemoan that there are not enough (good) dom/mes around.

Really? I've only sought RP with female and futa characters and a large portion are indeed sub, but at the same time I've always held the notion that most male characters are way too overly dominant, to the point where they struck me as slightly homophobic. Except those damnable femboys. Maybe I've been to the wrong places.

My complaint is that there's not enough subs that I'd be truly happy with. Feels like the bulk of them always expect me to be the one to come up with ideas, and the scenery and whatnot, and even if they agree to do every kink I can think of, it's just not going to work if they don't make any effort to help me flesh out the story, and just go along with everything I say or do. At the same time the subs that are very active don't quite agree with my sexual ideas!

Speaking of which since we're talking about what women view attractive in men visually, I'd be quite interested in seeing what do women generally think of feminine men compared to your usual macho hunk?





versus






Overall, would any girl say they like the first group more than the second? I know this is probably a shitty experiment because it would take days to collect proper pictures to somehow make it 'fair' but still. Finding pics of famous feminine men was also a bit harder than I had at first thought compared to finding all the examples of men that somehow represent something more masculine, at least superficially(looks wise). As you can see I tried to exclude the classic prettyboys like Brad Pitt and Dicaprio, and just went straight for the rugged looking men vs the effeminate ones.







rou

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 02:07:54 PM
Really? I've only sought RP with female and futa characters and a large portion are indeed sub, but at the same time I've always held the notion that most male characters are way too overly dominant, to the point where they struck me as slightly homophobic. Except those damnable femboys. Maybe I've been to the wrong places.

My complaint is that there's not enough subs that I'd be truly happy with. Feels like the bulk of them always expect me to be the one to come up with ideas, and the scenery and whatnot, and even if they agree to do every kink I can think of, it's just not going to work if they don't make any effort to help me flesh out the story, and just go along with everything I say or do. At the same time the subs that are very active don't quite agree with my sexual ideas!

This is essentially the issue I've come up with most, which, to be fair, I don't believe is a matter of dominance and submission. There is (for me) at least some element of surprise involved with, well if I tell you exactly what I want to happen and you do it, then first of all, it's not quite as fun because I knew exactly what to expect, and second of all, am I not then holding all the power and control, when I meant to exchange that power to you? But that's a lot different from completely failing to contribute, and I try not to force people into a position they don't want to be in. Power is not the same as contribution...

But I do get extremely frustrated when I'm writing a scene (or doing anything in real life) and the character / person I'm with lays back and says, "Do what you will." Or, "I'll do whatever you want me to do." And I'm playing this innocent, shy, virginal character. That does put the pressure on me to initiate everything and in reality, it's not that I don't have ideas, but that myself or my character feels uncomfortable expressing them. Obeying when told to put her hand somewhere is much more comfortable to my characters than just doing it. Of course, my own personal preference is to cater to the likes of others if possible, and when told "I'll do whatever you want me to do," generally my response is, "Then tell me what you want me to do."

Sometimes, it's lazy writing. Sometimes I do believe it can be a matter of personal preference, and if you place two submissives in a room that try to get the other to be more dominant, well, nobody's going to have a good time.

But yes, my experience with guys in general has been that most of them are much more submissive, and I have greatly struggled to negotiate more assertiveness and (feigned) aggression in my personal life. I have often initiated the first kiss or other sexual activities and was the only one to show much initiative. I was always in charge and always in power and I've rarely had any involvement with someone who made me feel equal in power, let alone any further in the submissive than that.

I could probably ramble much more about it, but it may not really be relevant to this thread.

QuoteSpeaking of which since we're talking about what women view attractive in men visually, I'd be quite interested in seeing what do women generally think of feminine men compared to your usual macho hunk?

...


Overall, would any girl say they like the first group more than the second? I know this is probably a shitty experiment because it would take days to collect proper pictures to somehow make it 'fair' but still. Finding pics of famous feminine men was also a bit harder than I had at first thought compared to finding all the examples of men that somehow represent something more masculine, at least superficially(looks wise). As you can see I tried to exclude the classic prettyboys like Brad Pitt and Dicaprio, and just went straight for the rugged looking men vs the effeminate ones.

Uhm... Yeah... Not exactly a good definition. I thought maybe the very first of the effeminates, I could be attracted to, and the Axl Rose picture looked nice. And in the second category, I liked Jason Momoa and Hugh Laurie. I don't... A lot of them were so extreme. I don't like those styles or fashions and I am rendered incapable of seeing the actual person to judge my interest in them.

Three cheers for guyliner, though.

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

Sheoldred

QuoteMale/Female psyche is a red herring. You can tell by going around the world and visiting different cultures throughout history that did not have a powerful distinction between masculine and feminine societal roles. Hell, we've only recently come to understand that half of all Viking Warriors were women because our archaeologists had been looking at the historical period through the eyes of Englishmen in the 1800s. They'd looked into the graves of Vikings and if they found a blue and round brooch the body was marked female, because female married women wore blue oval brooches.

It wasn't until we started checking bone density and structure for the chemical markers that separate high estrogen from high testosterone and realized that half of all vikings, regardless of what brooch they wore, were women.

Really? I had no idea. Always thought it was mostly men. I mean... if the viking ship sinks, then both, men and women and possibly the children die. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the women stay at home and raise the children? Do you have any articles to link that discuss this?



QuoteWhat makes it more masculine? The show of strength when he lifts the chair? The way he aggressively bumps and grinds against imaginary sexual partners? The hand down his pants suggesting he's grabbing his dick? Aside from lifting a chair, Cazwell's Ice Cream Truck had the same imagery and was viewed as feminine just a few moments ago.

Smooth vs angular. Yes, there are many smooth moves in Channing's dance as well but there is more angularity, and some of his movements convey power and strength to me. The way he moves his arms, the way he stands with his legs apart. It's the geometry, if you know what I mean?


Quote
I'm dubious about this in its full sentiment. I think there is something to be said about the societal roles of men as the providers and women as provided for. But let's be honest — living at home or working at McDonalds tends not to be a selling point for anybody, and as an unemployed 21 year old living at home, I hardly feel comforted that I'm a woman, as if that makes it look better. If that makes any sense?

Oh, of course. All issues that we're discussing affect both men and women, just that objectification is more of a problem for women while career and unemployment is... well, a huge problem for both, actually, but I'd still say women can get away more easily. At least if they have a pretty face and an awesome personality. How far is a guy going to get with a nice face and personality?


consortium11

Quote from: Steampunkette on October 07, 2014, 12:50:28 PM
Now let's look at western beauty a century ago. Still skinny, but flat-chested and super-pale white skin. Why were flappers beautiful if they didn't have big boobs and a nice butt, things modern men say are biological signifiers of sexiness, genetically ingrained in men to value in sexual partners?

100 years ago (so basically the 1910's) Lina Cavalieri was reputedly the "most beautiful woman in the world" (at least in the West) and she was hardly what one would call "flat-chested".

If we extend to the 1920's and the real era of the flapper then you'd have to note that Josephine Baker was considered one of the great beauties of her day (a visit to see her show being considered a vital part of any tour to continental Europe by English or American young men) and she certainly didn't have pale skin. a flat chest or small bottom. Likewise Dorothy Sebastian wasn't exactly flat-chested and Clara Bow had some curves to her.

Quote from: Steampunkette on October 07, 2014, 12:50:28 PMLet's go back another 50 years. Anyone ever seen Ruben's artwork? Big fat women with big asses and big breasts, skin as white as driven snow with a little pink here and there. What happened that fat was totally sexy as hell but then skinny with no figure was attractive and now skinny with a figure?

Rubens died in 1640... I'm not sure why he' be useful for an idea of beauty in the mid-to-late 1800's. In that period people like Lillie Langtry, Carolina “La Belle” Otero and Lotta Crabtree were all regarded as being among the most beautiful in the world... and while fashions have certainly changed I don't see what's so different between them and the various "types" the majority of men consider attractive today.

If we do look at renowned beauties of the 1600's (so when Reubens was painting) then we get Anna Margareta von Haugwitz and Alethea Talbot. It's worth noting that Reubens was one artist with his own take on beauty and attractiveness (hence the term "Reubenesque for describing larger women)... it's important not to base our view on what people consider beautiful in his era entirely on his artwork.

From what we can tell of the "great beauties" of an era (which becomes a lot easier once photographs of them appear), while fashions changed there have always been "types" that were considered attractive but they generally aren't too different to what is generally considered attractive today; some curves but not fat. Within those fairly wide boundaries many types of body and, at least from the 1920's onwards) skin colour were considered attractive.

rou

Well, I suppose that depends. If I were financially stable, I wouldn't mind being the breadwinner for my partner(s). As my current situation stands, I do feel some anxiety getting into relationships that seem not to have a stable future because that means bad times for the whole household. It doesn't make the individual more or less attractive to me.

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

consortium11

Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 02:48:09 PM
Really? I had no idea. Always thought it was mostly men. I mean... if the viking ship sinks, then both, men and women and possibly the children die. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the women stay at home and raise the children? Do you have any articles to link that discuss this?

Steampunkette's misunderstanding a study... which is fair enough as almost all of the reporting on the study equally misunderstood it. The study itself can be found here and a typical article about it can be seen here.

There's a really good breakdown of what the study actually says here and a good comment actually under the linked article above (which the article actually links to). In brief, they studied 13 bodies and, by using bone analysis rather than grave goods they identified that a higher percentage of viking women were around at that site (and thus presumably in general during the invasion of England but that's a large extrapolation) than previously thought and that they arrived in England earlier than thought but it provides absolutely no evidence that they were warriors... the study itself uses the term "settlers". We're pretty much certain there were some viking shield maidens/warrior women but this study doesn't delve into that at all (the conclusion it reaches is that women and children came over to settle earlier than previously thought) the 50% of viking warriors was female thing is a combination of poor reporting and wishful thinking.

Steampunkette

Take a look at the contents of the graves on table 2.

Of the 10 graves (7 people were buried in three of the graves) 6 contained knives, swords, axes, or arrowheads. 3 of the graves with blades contained women, one of which was buried with her two sons. The other three graves contained men.

Based on that, about half of the people buried with weapons were women, not men.

Sure, you could argue that it might have been a kitchen knife or some small survival tool, but then you've got 2-3 women buried with swords, axes, and hammers (one of the bodies couldn't be identified on a gender basis).

And sure, it's only 13 corpses in a single community in a wave of armed settlers rather than a comprehensive check of every set of bones we've got. But which is a more logical conclusion, that the one time someone attempted to identify by studying the bones they managed to luck out and grab one of the handful of egalitarian viking settlements or that it's a hell of a lot more common than we previously expected because we weren't bothering to check beyond "Weapons, that's a dude!"?

Also: Say what you want about settlers versus warriors. If you're wearing swords and axes when you "Settle" it's pretty clear you're a warrior, even if your main thrust in life isn't to slaughter the innocent and steal shit. You still got trained, and armed, and invade another country wearing weapons of war. The US Army Corps of Engineers are still soldiers when they're building a bridge or a bunker. :P
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Steampunkette

Again, I can't edit, but that 13 should be a 14.

Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: Steampunkette on October 07, 2014, 03:56:38 PM


Also: Say what you want about settlers versus warriors. If you're wearing swords and axes when you "Settle" it's pretty clear you're a warrior, even if your main thrust in life isn't to slaughter the innocent and steal shit. You still got trained, and armed, and invade another country wearing weapons of war. The US Army Corps of Engineers are still soldiers when they're building a bridge or a bunker. :P

The pioneers who traveled out to settle the American West carried guns, both to hunt and to defend themselves from bandits or hostile natives. Do you also consider them to be 'warriors'?

rou

Was there not already a thread somewhere else to debate the viking thing?

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

Steampunkette

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on October 07, 2014, 04:07:56 PM
The pioneers who traveled out to settle the American West carried guns, both to hunt and to defend themselves from bandits or hostile natives. Do you also consider them to be 'warriors'?

Yes. I do consider armed invaders to be warriors.

And while an axe or sword or knife is really useful in killing a person: If you're trying to kill an attacking animal with a sword you have already failed.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

consortium11

#56
We have the burials of a number of Viking children with weapons; I assume we're not likewise using that as evidence that the viking armies contained a significant number of warrior children?

Just because someone is buried with a sword no-more makes one a warrior than one being buried with an apron or a broach makes them a housewife/husband. That's the danger (something the study makes clear) of reading too much into grave-goods. To quote the study itself (emphasis mine):

QuoteThe presence of Norse women during the campaigning period, as indicated by the results from Heath Wood and Repton, suggests that some women had come to England as the partners of warriors in the great army, as was the case with the 890s army.

QuoteAs it can be demonstrated that women and probably children accompanied the great army of the 860s and 870s it increases the possibility that that army had also arrived in England with the intention of winning a homeland.

rou

Here's the topic about the viking study. I think it'd be a good idea to take the debate and discussion there, just because the topic already exists. Or if you'd like to continue here, by all means, I suppose. Thought I'd try to help out.

// A&A: July 17, 2022 //
“succubus angel” — anonymous

Sheoldred

I modified the title of the thread just so we don't have to worry as much about straying off-topic. :P

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: Steampunkette on October 07, 2014, 04:20:20 PM
Yes. I do consider armed invaders to be warriors.

And while an axe or sword or knife is really useful in killing a person: If you're trying to kill an attacking animal with a sword you have already failed.

That didn't answer the question. The settlers can't be said to have been 'invading' anything in most cases; Native American tribes didn't recognize or adhere to the same concepts of property ownership or territory that white countries did, nor did the white politicians and settlers accept native sovereignty (which is incredibly sad and shameful in its own right, but not relevant) - you can't invade something no one owns or claims to own, not even the current occupants. Where they were moving into/onto recognized native tribal lands, they were typically escorted by actual soldiers of the U.S. Army.

As for weapons, what about spears? The spear, and its descendants in the polearm family, were excellent tools for killing people for a very long time, and they've also been the pre-eminent weapon for hunting certain animals (boar comes to mind) for an equally long time, eventually replaced roughly simultaneously by modern firearms. If the viking bodies in question had possessed spears instead of swords (being another common Viking weapon), would you not consider them to be warriors anymore?

Steampunkette

"They didn't conceptualize it as ownership" Semantics. If I pick up a rock and shape it into a tool and have no concept of ownership and you take it away from me the State will still prosecute you for theft by taking, even if I don't recognize what you've done is theft.

As a nation we did that on a biblical scale. And you can try to argue the semantics of it all you like but it doesn't change the fact that the "Hostile Natives" you were talking about were trying to get their land back, fight off invaders, or otherwise seek justice on "Settlers" who wronged them.

Invaders is the appropriate term, there.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: Steampunkette on October 07, 2014, 06:14:17 PM
"They didn't conceptualize it as ownership" Semantics. If I pick up a rock and shape it into a tool and have no concept of ownership and you take it away from me the State will still prosecute you for theft by taking, even if I don't recognize what you've done is theft.

As a nation we did that on a biblical scale. And you can try to argue the semantics of it all you like but it doesn't change the fact that the "Hostile Natives" you were talking about were trying to get their land back, fight off invaders, or otherwise seek justice on "Settlers" who wronged them.

Invaders is the appropriate term, there.

Read the whole post before you reply, please. You do not have a concept of ownership for your rock tool...but in this case, the State does not either, because it doesn't think that tool is yours in the first place. So no, it won't prosecute, but it will permit the second person pay a fee to purchase ownership papers for the rock tool, then send its police to arrest you when you try and take your rock tool back. The western settlement was a lot more complicated than you want to admit, and hardly the 'evil white man against noble Indian' you want to paint it as...many of those settlers needed their guns to defend against natives who wanted to murder them and their families, loot their homesteads, and trade/sell the contents to other natives. Many settlers got along absolutely great with their native neighbors on an individual scale. Many settlers were simply ambivalent about the native existence, and just wanted land for themselves. Many settlers were actively prejudiced against the natives and eager to take 'their' land for America. The only 'invaders' present in this entire situation would be the U.S. Army troops. Oddly enough, the exact same argument you just used by citing the Army Corp of Engineers, who are still soldiers...because they're in the army, being a soldier is literally their job description.

It's not semantics when you're making up a new definition of a word to defend your position, literally redefining civilian non-combatants as invading warriors. Please support your debating position with facts, rather than conjecture.

Steampunkette

Don't put words into my mouth. I despise it when people do that.

And yes. It was an invasion and a theft of land. You can spin it any way you like it, but it remains the same. You can say that people didn't care about other people's rights, but that doesn't change what it was: An invasion by a technologically advanced society.

None of those invaders would have needed their guns to shoot Native Americans if they didn't invade the Americas in the first place.

There is no way you can spin it that won't come out the exact same way: The Colonist Invaders attacked indigenous people, stole their land, murdered them by the thousands, and destroyed their way of life and their culture. Whether or not the invaders considered it a crime or not doesn't change any of that. Whether or not their intent was to murder and steal or just steal because they didn't have any respect for other people's claims is irrelevant.

They were still armed invaders.

As for the Corps of Engineers: Yep. They're soldiers. They're also builders. Do you know why we don't have "Settlers" invading other people's land to be a perfect parallel? Because we now recognize it for what it is.

ALL of the Colonists, whether they came with guns for the express purpose of Murder or they came to carve out America or they just came because they were told "Free Land!" and were dumb enough to believe it: All of them were invaders.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Ephiral

Quote from: Steampunkette on October 08, 2014, 01:04:04 AMThere is no way you can spin it that won't come out the exact same way: The Colonist Invaders attacked indigenous people, stole their land, murdered them by the thousands, and destroyed their way of life and their culture. Whether or not the invaders considered it a crime or not doesn't change any of that. Whether or not their intent was to murder and steal or just steal because they didn't have any respect for other people's claims is irrelevant.

They were still armed invaders.
Intent isn't magic. Outcome is paramount. Ask a native if the settlers were invaders, if you can find one.

lesleymoon

#64
Quote from: Sheoldred on October 07, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
Speaking of which, for the sake of the topic I decided to share a specific detail about myself that my ex found appalling. If I need some alone time with myself, so to speak, I always think about female parts. Not that they'd be separate from the woman but I basically focus on parts and probably objectify the female body, yes. Heck, sometimes it makes it easier to think of fantasy races(elves, draenei etc) for me instead of real people. That, or porn actresses. However, I cannot ever bring myself to masturbate to people that I know - not even actresses. If I've seen the actress in a proper movie, not some mindless porn, I just can't do it. The ex I mentioned got mad at me because she was probably insulted by the fact that I can't toy with myself using her pictures or imagining her and its pretty important for a woman to be acknowledged as beautiful, isnt it? Even with her full consent I just somehow couldn't do it. Not that I had a strong moral stand on it, my conscious just didn't let me. It simply felt 'wrong' to create a duplicate of the real person in my own mind and make them act how I'd find it pleasing. On the other hand, just focusing on the body without giving it a name seemed much easier. Whenever I do give the woman a personality, its a fictional woman of my own imagination, usually not even entirely human(again, elf or some persian princess or something like that).



So its okay to beat off to Jessie Jane, but not Natalie Portman because Jessie Jane is a porn actress and Natalie Portman is a 'legit' actress?

THAT is objectification, plain and simple.

Porn actresses (and actors) ARE real people. They exist, they have thoughts, they have feelings, personalities. What you're doing is reducing them down to merely their onscreen image, which, yes, is highly sexual. But you're taking away their basic humanity....why? Just because they are a porn actress? Natalie Portman is no more of a person than Jessie Jane is, and Jessie Jane isn't less of a person than Natalie Portman just because of her line of work.  You don't know either one of them, so they are both, to you, merely images on a screen. Yet somehow you classify them differently.

Not cool bro.

I'm not trying to be rude, or argumentative because I actually see where you're coming from, I don't masturbate to thoughts or images of people that I know personally either. Its sorta weird to me.