You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 03:49:14 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Objectification and Gender Roles  (Read 2627 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SheoldredTopic starter

Re: Objectification
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2014, 08:55:28 AM »
Quote
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.

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.


Quote
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.

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.


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

:|

High five?

Offline Melusine

Re: Objectification
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2014, 08:59:06 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.

Offline Melusine

Re: Objectification
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2014, 09:24:00 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

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...

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.

:|

High five?

High five.  :-\

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Objectification
« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2014, 09:25:25 AM »
And 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.

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".

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.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 09:27:55 AM by Valthazar »

Offline SheoldredTopic starter

Re: Objectification
« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2014, 09:39:22 AM »
Quote
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.

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.



But he does have an amazing voice.


Quote
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.

Likewise Romans shaved!

Offline Melusine

Re: Objectification
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2014, 09:58:43 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Objectification
« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2014, 10:02:56 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.

Offline SheoldredTopic starter

Re: Objectification
« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2014, 10:11:31 AM »
Quote
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.

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.

Offline Melusine

Re: Objectification
« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2014, 10:24:20 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.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Objectification
« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2014, 10:38:02 AM »
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'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).

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.

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).



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.

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.

Offline consortium11

Re: Objectification
« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2014, 10:40:06 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.

Offline SheoldredTopic starter

Re: Objectification
« Reply #36 on: October 07, 2014, 10:56:46 AM »
Quote
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.

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.

Offline Kushiel

Re: Objectification
« Reply #37 on: October 07, 2014, 11:10:13 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.

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?

Offline Melusine

Re: Objectification
« Reply #38 on: October 07, 2014, 11:16:01 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.

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).


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.

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.

Offline roulette

Re: Objectification
« Reply #39 on: October 07, 2014, 11:38:23 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.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 11:40:41 AM by roulette »

Offline consortium11

Re: Objectification
« Reply #40 on: October 07, 2014, 12:06:11 PM »
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.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Objectification
« Reply #41 on: October 07, 2014, 12:06:55 PM »
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.

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.

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.

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

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Objectification
« Reply #42 on: October 07, 2014, 12:50:28 PM »
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
ing 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Compare it to this video -



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.
And would you say this is just as sexy?


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.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Objectification
« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2014, 12:59:20 PM »
Please excuse my broken and pointless quote pyramid. Apparently I missed an /quote in there somewhere and I can't edit the post.

Offline roulette

Re: Objectification
« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2014, 01:06:55 PM »
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.)

Quote
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.

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."

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

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.

Offline SheoldredTopic starter

Re: Objectification
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2014, 02:07:54 PM »
Quote
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.

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.







Offline roulette

Re: Objectification
« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2014, 02:45:00 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.

Quote
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?

...


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.

Offline SheoldredTopic starter

Re: Objectification
« Reply #47 on: October 07, 2014, 02:48:09 PM »
Quote
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.

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?



Quote
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.

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?


Offline consortium11

Re: Objectification
« Reply #48 on: October 07, 2014, 03:03:58 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.

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?

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.

Offline roulette

Re: Objectification
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2014, 03:05:20 PM »
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.