Everyday Objectification

Discussion in 'Discussion' started by parabola, May 11, 2014.

  1. parabola Destiny Islands Resident

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Gender:
    Male
    20
    52
    Just a thought that I had following tale_wind's recent thread, which brings up an excellent question of internal fantasies and what responsibilities (if any) we have towards people we know with regards to our fantasies and sexual urges.

    Now, all of my comments come from a cisgendered heterosexual male perspective; I'm about as hetero-normative as they come, but that's all I know. With that in mind, it seems to me that there would come a time in almost every woman's life, probably around her teenage years, when she realizes "I have probably been the object of someone's (or many people's) sexual fantasy". In short, I'm wondering what it's like to be in that position. I realize it's possible for men to be the recipients of this, but I believe it's different. It seems to me like the stereotype of women fantasizing more about scenarios than pure sexual thoughts has a lot of truth to it.

    Furthermore, it seems that in much of our media and culture, men's sexuality is regarded as an aspect of their being, whereas quite often women's sexuality is seen as the totality of their being. And here's the potential problem with fantasies: men are very easily able to reduce women down to their sexuality and just think of them as sexual beings in their heads, while recognizing their personhood and agency in real life. I'm wondering if women are okay with this, or whether that feels like a violation. I'm also wondering whether I have a decent approximation of how women's fantasies work, or if I'm totally off base.
     
  2. A Zebra Chaser

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    1,953
    Every sex objectifies whatever sex they're interested in, it's a normal biological thing, and it CERTAINLY isn't limited or even slanted towards either physical gender. Women objectify men every bit as much as men do, when it comes to fantasies, it's just more of a faux pas for a woman to talk about it (and actually I've found that this often causes the sexuality of women's thoughts to be more extreme than men, since they have to bottle it up in a lot of social scenarios)
    And on the broader scale, I don't think anybody needs to take any responsibility in the physical world for the thoughts they keep in their head. Your inner most thoughts are probably too much a core part of your being to truly change, so all you could really do is suppress them, and why do that? It's a waste of your energy for something that hurts you and benefits nobody
     
  3. Ienzo ((̲̅ ̲̅(̲̅C̲̅r̲̅a̲̅y̲̅o̲̅l̲̲̅̅a̲̅( ̲̅̅((>

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    In your breadbin
    2,762
    I find it normal for a woman to be objectified in someone's head but when that treatment is brought into real life then I have a problem. Yes, women will objectify men in their sexual fantasies as it's just what happens in the thought process, it's not exclusive to men but no one in this world should feel objectified sexually. I have been a victim of it quite a bit and it has caused me great distress, some thoughts are better left as thoughts.

    It isn't socially acceptable for a woman to admit watching porn or masturbating, it's not something we take pride in at all (I am not 100% certain of male cultures but I know it's a topic that is more openly talked about, the amount of times one of my male collegues at work has walked in and mentioned their masturbation habits is quite high). It's a topic I would only ever talk about with my closest friends and even then it's all highly secretive.

    As for any fantasies I have, it's only with specific people and scenarios, I have never just fantasied about the thought of actually having sex.
     
  4. parabola Destiny Islands Resident

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Gender:
    Male
    20
    52
    I'll start with the latter part: that is essentially what I was trying to get at with regards to the gender distinction I mentioned, as I feel like the male imagination (or maybe it's just me and my brain works strangely) is able to separate the sexual act from people more easily than women's.

    With regards to the earlier topic, it's certainly the case that we have a guilt culture in the west, and that masturbation was seen as a source of guilt until fairly recently, and still is a source of it in some religious sects, etc. So in that sense, masturbation isn't really a point of pride, but it's now largely accepted as something men just do. Even I personally view it as more of a biological function than anything else. But with regards to women's sexuality, it's been systematically repressed throughout most cultures and throughout most of history. The worst part of this now is a sort of anti-feminism that I've noticed becoming more prominent in my lifetime; so while someone like Belle Knox might write about how she thinks that "patriarchy fears female sexuality" and her point is totally valid, so often I hear that it's other women who **** shame and frown upon women who express enjoying masturbation and even sex.

    (For all who don't know, Belle Knox is an adult actress and blogger who attends Duke University and was outed by a classmate; she wrote a great series of articles on the subject, all of which are borderline NSFW but well worth the read: http://www.xojane.com/sex/duke-university-freshman-porn-star)
     
  5. Ars Nova Just a ghost.

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Gender:
    hungry
    Location:
    Hell 71
    2,986
    Actually I'd say it's the opposite, since men are less pressured to do so. They might offend women, but they can usually get a "Hell yeah!" from at least one other guy, which is enabling.
     
  6. Misty gimme kiss

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Gender:
    Cisgender Female
    Location:
    alderaan
    6,590
    This is something I've been quite interested in exploring given that, in my experience, it is similar to what you say: generally women fantasize less about the physical act of sex and more about the emotion and who they're doing it with. There are two ways I've found to look at it, both of which I think are valid. The first relates to your point about masturbation, that women masturbating and/or watching porn is very taboo in our society (not to say that male masturbation is necessarily acceptable but it's far more normalized and expected in our culture for a variety of reasons) -- girls are raised to look at love more abstractly. While boys are conditioned to objectify women physically, women are more prone to viewing men more as emotional partners. These are of course big generalizations and I don't agree with their presence, but this is the gender binary we're raised and conditioned in -- many do not fit this mold.

    The second is an evolutionary argument. Science holds that the fundamental goal for all beings is to reproduce, and sex is of course linked to that. For a man, he can reproduce through the simple act of having sex which, ignoring things like fatigue (both physical and sexual), can be done several times a day, every day. While he may not necessarily produce a child each time, as long as he inseminates the woman, his reproductive work is done.

    Women, however, must put more consideration into it -- because they carry and give birth to the child, they typically must assume responsibility for raising the child to adulthood. The task is vastly easier with a male companion; therefore, a woman will biologically seek a sexual partner they feel will commit to them in the long-term, and therefore help raise offspring. While our modern conceptions of sex and love have deviated from reproduction, the process of mate selection is definitely affected by this evolutionary influence.
     
  7. Ars Nova Just a ghost.

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Gender:
    hungry
    Location:
    Hell 71
    2,986
    Ahh I was waiting for a Mistypost u 3u

    Well said, and I could get behind either of these arguments. In fact it's most likely a mix of them.

    You know what's interesting though? There are a fair number of men who enjoy being objectified themselves, and women who enjoy doing so, both of whom can be quite vocal. Perhaps it's a simple bucking against trends, but I'd like to dig into the sociological and evolutionary aspects of that. The "dominatrix" is such a prominent romantic/sexual archetype... or is that another form of objectification? I dunno.
     
  8. Misty gimme kiss

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Gender:
    Cisgender Female
    Location:
    alderaan
    6,590
    Yeah I've naturally got a lot to say about the stuff in this thread, was just waiting for a post that set me off heh

    Fair warning that things might get a little nsfw below

    You're right, it is interesting definitely. However, I'm inclined to say that kinks/turn-ons are separate from the generalized views of sexuality in my post. However, the dominatrix kink (and even something as simple as the women being on top during hetero sex, which usually means that she controls the rhythm & such) I think relates in that it's an inversion of what we expect -- the male dominating (after all, missionary is considered the standard sexual position). Sexual experimentation is of course exciting to people, and putting the woman into a dominant position is sort of an experiment with how society typically functions. To give a personal experience, I'm a very passive person in general and, at this point in my life, passive sexually as well. A guy I was with would ask me if I was at all into the idea of being more dominant romantically and, by extension, sexually (nothing as extreme as dominatrix stuff, honestly I was & still am figuring out my sexuality so it was really small things like being the one to initiate sexy talkz rather than just responding). Nobody likes to be the one who always initiates for obvious reasons and the guy's interest in this example is probably because I am so passive, but in general I think men are excited by the idea of women as sexual creatures, and women as well find embracing and freely expressing their inner sexuality, controlling intercourse, exciting.

    As we've established in the thread society limits a woman's sexual expression unless it is elicited by a man; that's why female masturbation is still so hush-hush, because it represents this idea that a woman has natural sexual desires and a sexuality independent of men. This is also a limiting factor for lesbians, as society is puzzled by the idea of sex without men anywhere in the equation (sex between two+ men is marginally more acceptable because in society's view, men gonna be men). I'd argue that male interest in "lesbian porn" (put into quotations because what's advertised as lesbian porn is rarely geared towards actual lesbians) is similar to the dominatrix kink in that way -- because it represents this thrilling idea that women are sexual creatures.
     
  9. A Zebra Chaser

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    1,953
    I think a fairly large number of people like being objectified to some degree
    There's a reason why we have stereotypes about comparing a person to an animal (like a dog, usually) in bed
    I think a lot of people would probably like the idea of their partner or whatever being that into them based purely on how good looking they are, or how good they are a banging

    Anyways, masturbation isn't really accepted at all, at best it's tolerated. It's about as acceptable as sex is, in society. So people go on about how it's natural and people shouldn't be ashamed
    but nobody wants to hear about it if they don't have to
     
  10. parabola Destiny Islands Resident

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Gender:
    Male
    20
    52
    That's definitely an evolutionary narrative that holds some water, although I find increasingly often that articles on gender relations kind of lazily throw in a theory about evolutionary psychology that the author made up on the spot; one which isn't really based in science at all. One thing that makes me question it- although this may be an apples-and-oranges kind of point- is divorce statistics. In the U.S, approximately 60% of heterosexual divorces are initiated by women. This is surely in part because there are far greater instances of male-to-female physical abuse in marriages than vice versa, and in those cases the woman would most likely initiate the divorce, but I wouldn't think that would account for a whole 10% greater incidence. Also, although it is early in its existence, current analysis of same-sex marriages show a significantly lower rate of divorce in male same-sex marriages, and a significantly higher rate in female same-sex marriages. In short, (although I realize you weren't making such a basic argument) it seems like the women= seeking commitment and men= seeking fertility conception of gender is somewhat off-base, even though it's intuitive.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2014
  11. Misty gimme kiss

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Gender:
    Cisgender Female
    Location:
    alderaan
    6,590
    Oh yeah, I don't mean to overstate the influence of evolution. For humans it's not as applicable as we've circumvented the ideas of survival of the fittest/natural selection because we're, generally, not living in a society where those unfit to survive can't and don't reproduce, nor can we really define unfit to survive. In fact many feminists are uncomfortable attributing much at all to nature/evolution because it has the dangerous implication that our sex is tied to our gender, an idea we don't like. I think nurture is a far stronger influence; that is, how differently we raise boys and girls affects how they approach sexual partners and sexuality in general. Individuality is also a big factor, as obviously women aren't always looking for commitment while men can be very long-term commitment driven. I'd say that our biology may be predisposed to one or the other, but our upbringing, societal conditioning, and personality are far more influential.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2014
  12. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    I have zero control over what does or doesn' t turn me on, I don' t feel any guilt whatsoever about my fantasies (which yes, involve a fair amount of objectification). The idea of actually acting out some of them out is repulsive to me though.
    Wait what ? Which planet do you live on ? XD
    From an evolutionary standpoint, unfit = anyone who died without reproducing. Pretty sure we still have those around. We' re just as much submitted to natural selection as we ever were, and just as much as any other species. Yes, the rules have changed. Always have, always will. So ? A new virus or a giant ass meteor might pop up tomorrow and wipe us all out.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2014
  13. Glen Returned from the dead

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    713
    Objectification happens a lot, it's only natural. Voicing those thoughts about another is another thing entirely. I dislike the fact that people objectify others and some people see others as nothing other than a sexual entity, but hey it happens and there doesn't seem to be too much that you can do about it. I try to keep my opinions to myself personally, and I wish others would do the same but like I said, not much you can do.
     
  14. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Whether you like it or not has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
     
  15. Ars Nova Just a ghost.

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Gender:
    hungry
    Location:
    Hell 71
    2,986
    That seemed a little unnecessary, not to mention off-topic. How 'bout you start a thread for it and I'll slugfest you over how valid it is.
     
  16. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    I have no clue how valid it is or isn' t, I don' t know and won' t pretend to. I was just underlining the fallacy. Oh and just so you know I translated "gender" as "personality". If you want to be called a *insert arbitrary pronoun* regardless of your birth sex by all means knock yourself out.
     
  17. Misty gimme kiss

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Gender:
    Cisgender Female
    Location:
    alderaan
    6,590
    I meant more so that it's difficult to apply the laws of evolution to the human race because we're not under the threats of the wild. What determines fitness in humans? Health? Financial success? Intelligence? Clearly not those from an evolutionary standpoint as people of poor health, low income, and low intelligence do still reproduce. Even the genetically disadvantaged (people with a familial history of diseases etc.) continue to reproduce. People may of course die without reproducing, and an unseen disaster may wipe us all out, but the elements of natural selection can't really be applied to modern society as they are to nature.
    For a question like nature vs nurture, for which science hasn't drawn any definite conclusions, one's beliefs are absolutely valid. But I agree that we're getting off topic.
     
  18. Ars Nova Just a ghost.

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Gender:
    hungry
    Location:
    Hell 71
    2,986
    Thanks for the back-handed approval, but I still say we take this outside. And this isn't the debate corner, there's no need to criticize someone for sharing their point of view.
     
  19. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Oh if you just meant to put that opinion out there, then sure, it' s totally fair game. I would have mentionned we don' t know for sure yet to clarify but meh, now it' s done. I' d nitpick what you just added too but I think I' ll take a hint, pack my inner biology nazi and take it elsewhere. No, not outside.
     
  20. Daydreamer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    137
    Not necessarily true. There are those born that tend to be giving, or self-sacrificing, and devote or give their lives to ensure the survival of others, thus allowing those others a better chance to reproduce. Spreading your own genes and self-survival are not the only factors in evolution, or the survival of a species. Ants with their queens and workers come to mind.

    Natural selection applies to all living beings. Just because a gene that carries a genetic debilitating disease won't wither out, doesn't mean humans are exempt from natural selection, it means that specific debilitating gene is below the current threshold between surviving and dying. That threshold is raised higher as humans as a species and society become more better equipped to deal and help each other with disadvantages. Natural selection applies, it just means more and more of us are becoming more "fit" to survive: our current conditions allow it. We may continue to grow this way, until we reach that point where the resources will no longer sustain our numbers, and growth will slow. The world population is self-adjusting, and will cater to our environment and resources.

    I guess I'll say something about objectification now...

    People can be objectified non-sexually as well, where someone seeks to use someone else for their own emotional satisfaction. I think a good example of this would be clingy relationships, where someone expects their partner to do things for them: take them out, go on dates, buy them things. They'll get offended when they don't, and are easily jealous. I've been faced with a relationship before where someone wanted to have me, just so he could "have me," and that's not in any sexual sense, guy was asexual. Wanted me to move in out-of-state with him. Didn't care about my feelings about it, as long as I was willing. I told him that I wasn't comfortable with it yet, and he told me I might as well piss off. Well, the relationship ended there, haha. Him having me around as some sort of status symbol or toy was not appealing in the least.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014