A naked human body is a naked human body, not a sex object.

[Gravitycollapse]

Thus the argument that women shouldn't wear revealing clothing if they don't want to be sexually harassed rests on an unsound premise. That premise is that women must hide their bodies because men can't control themselves.

A naked body is not sexualized until someone sexualizes it. For instance, doctors and nurses see naked bodies all of the time without stress because the body is not conceptualized as a sex object in the context of their interactions.

Whether or not the naked or near naked female body is actually sexualized in the present is not a sound argument that naked or near naked female bodies should be sexualized. A lot of the MRA crowd seems to confuse the two and accuse us of denying reality when in actuality we are saying reality needs to change.

We are intelligent creatures. If women are able to control themselves around naked or nearly naked men, men can do the same for women.

Despite arguments to the contrary, not being encouraged to publicly sexualize every woman wearing form fitting clothing is not an affront to anyone's sexual rights.

And if you argue that women should simply cover themselves up, you are a part of the vicious problem.

[uppityperson]

1. I never understood the juxtaposition of "men are in charge" and "men can't control themselves".

A body is just a body is just a body.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. I've also never understood the fragility of these person's sexualities.

Or their need to possess virtual sexual ownership over complete strangers. As if the very vitality of their life depends on it.

[msongs]

3. if humans all went naked most of these issues would disappear IMO nt

[Gravitycollapse]

4. The fabrication of the human body as taboo is what has driven us to such instability.

Which then drives an ever increasing sexual desire to see the human body naked as some sort of satisfaction.

Not that, for instance, being naked with one's partner can't or shouldn't be satisfying. But such relations tend to involve an attachment that does not exist in the sexualization of total strangers. The body of a partner is melded together with their mind rather than separated. That, to me, is the exact opposite of objectification and it allows for the observance of physical beauty in the context of the greater human experience.

"My partner's body is beautiful because I love him/her" That's not something we hear very often. That the outward beauty of someone could involve a characteristic that cannot be syphoned off by anyone with eyes.

[Doctor_J]

5. then why all the harrumphing over the si swimsuit issue?

[Gravitycollapse]

8. Because it turns the naked body of a female into a sexual object to be consumed by mass strangers.

Maybe you have confused my OP. What I'm saying is that there is no essentialist argument that a naked human body is a sex object. The sexualization of the human body takes place in the mind of other humans.

[Doctor_J]

16. your op is perfectly clear in and of itself, but is in direct

conflict with the SI outrage. As an aside, people who walk around naked or covered in tattoos, who claim to be offended by other people looking at them, are being disingenuous.

[Gravitycollapse]

17. Your argument essentially amounts to "women want it." Which is deplorable.

You think people who walk around with visible tattoos just unceasingly desire attention?

I'm not surprised by your rhetoric but my lack of surprise makes it no less absurd. To assume strangers want or desire your attention simply because they refuse to cover up is so utterly narcissist and so blind to the will of others, it borders on sociopathy.

[liberal N proud]

6. If were not sexually attracted to each other, we would be extinct

We are all sex objects.

What is not necessary is demeaning objectification.

[Gravitycollapse]

7. All objectification is demeaning.

To be objectified is to have your personhood revoked. It is to have your body broken down into constituent parts for sexual consumption by others.

It is a degrading, nasty thing to do.

The same argument about "extinction" is made about homosexuality by ignorant homophobes. And it is equal parts ridiculous and irrelevant.

[liberal N proud]

9. I realize it is used by ignorant people in regard to homosexuality

But they think that homosexuality is contagious. But it is a biological fact that procreation will not happen without sexual attraction. If the thought of sex does not excite me, I am not going to have sex. That could be the same for gays as well I suspect.
We are attracted to each other for more than just conversation even though most of our relationships are pkutonic.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. No, you're acting exactly like those ignorant people...

By trying to turn this into an issue of procreation. You are arguing about the economics of sexuality which is much theorized about in many marxist feminist writings.

You divert concern away from the personhood of human beings in favor of an argument which essentializes and prioritizes the maintenance of a worker class and, ultimately, the arbitrary continuation of our species.

[liberal N proud]

13. It is what it is!

[Gravitycollapse]

15. Would you like some soap for that hand wash?

[LanternWaste]

45. Wonderful, yet unsupported bumper-sticker you recited there, little fella!

Wonderful, yet unsupported bumper-sticker you recited there, little fella!

[liberal N proud]

46. Huh?

Little fella?

[xfundy]

10. But, but!

If BabyJesus™ wanted us to be nekkid, we'd have been borned that way!!!1!

Honestly, is there anything more disgusting than the human body that God created as his greatest achievement, and if we look at it he'll throw us into a burning HELL for all eternity because God is Love?

On the men thing, men tend to get all "woop woop" and band together when they want to do something stupid/hateful/harmful/suicidal. I don't think there's a cure.

[pipoman]

12. Here

"because some men can't control themselves."

Just like some people might rob me if they see I am carrying a roll of cash. This has nothing to do with society in general, it has to with a subset of society. This doesn't mean women shouldn't wear what they want. Doesn't have anything to do with men in general, men are more aware of the truths of how some men think. It doesn't mean most or even a measurable number condone it.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. I guess I was being too subtle. I'm saying men can control themselves but choose not to.

[pipoman]

18. I saw what you said

I also read "If women are able to control themselves around naked or nearly naked men...". Surely you aren't saying all women can or do control themselves?

[Gravitycollapse]

19. No, of course not. But the difference in conduct between the sexes is staggering.

[pipoman]

20. so why is it fair to attribute the acts of some

Men on all men?

[davidthegnome]

25. This is a question I have often asked.

However... if a young child is attacked ferociously by a dog, it is possible that they will have a fear of dogs well into their adulthood. I think it's kind of similar. At least in the sense that - once someone has had a bad experience with a man, or with a number of men, it tends to taint the way one looks at them. Consciously or subconsciously, our experiences make up the whole of what we are. When so many young men act like sex crazed idiots, it doesn't really come as a surprise that we are all painted with the same brush - even if it is, at times, inaccurate. Does this excuse this behavior (judging all by the actions of a few)? Not really, but perhaps it explains it a little.

For me it's not so much about right or wrong, as it is simply about the experiences that we have. Personally, I am a much harsher judge of men than I am of women - I am less comfortable around them, and my guard is always up. This is because of experiences that I have had personally.

All of that being said - there's a lot of really great men out there too, who think with the organs which are intended for thinking. The media though, everything from our magazines, to our movies, to random internet ads... capitalizes on, sells, indulges in, uses - and objectifies sex. It makes it out to be something "naughty", like in porn flicks where a man completely degrades a woman and she basically says "Oh yeah, do it again!"

The reality of it is that the taboo itself sort of makes it taboo, if that makes sense. Hundreds of years of oppression through the tools of humanity - government and religion - not just against our general rights as human beings, but against our very bodies. The suggestion that doing something that feels good is bad, evil, just because it feels good. It's nonsense. Humanity is really pretty damn stupid, we took a simple, wonderful thing - and it make it insanely complex and conflicted.

I'd love to live in a world where we weren't all so damn shy, so damn uptight, about our bodies. We're social creatures, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex itself. It's just our twisted culture - and I can't see a way out, for men, or women.

[F4lconF16]

26. I think perhaps that

most of the men you refer to "who are aware of how some men think" will also realize that the posters who discuss this are not referring to them and are not in any way attempting to disparage men as a whole.

Most men who read this will understand the intentions of the poster. I've seen this across too many of the gender threads, and it does nothing but serve as a distraction.

[pipoman]

27. seems pretty easy to put in a reference like

"Some" "a few " etc instead of blanketing all men. Maybe you can read the posters mind, I can't. ..I can only go by what another poster writes to determine what they are saying.

[LanternWaste]

44. If you deny yourself contextual inference, interpretation and textual criticism...

"I can only go by what another poster writes to determine what they are saying..."

If you deny yourself contextual inference, interpretation and textual criticism, if you have zero knowledge of poster's previous writings, and if context is a thing that is too difficult, then yeah... literalism is pretty much only thing you can go by-- a lot of fundies do the same thing in regards to reading the bible.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

28. Yep.

It is the will to misunderstand.

[pipoman]

31. Read post 12 and 14 and explain how anyone

Who isn't a mind reader could come away with any other opinion of what gravity was saying. Post 12 points out that the op is worded to attribute bad acts of some men on all men as does 14...what is to misunderstand?

There is an answer to the question in 14 if it is reference to some not all....that isn't what the poster said even though that was the question in 12. So no, it isnt willful misunderstandig, it is either what the poster said or willful ambiguity.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

32. I'm sorry, you lost me here...

"...the op is worded to attribute bad acts of some men on all me misunderstandingates exactly that."

[pipoman]

33. fat fingers on a tiny keyboard. .fixed it. .

[A-Schwarzenegger]

34. Maybe it's my turn in the will to misunderstand chair

because your questions and references to other posts
(which I re-read) leave me still lost. I am a simple man.
I agreed with F4lcon because when I read "men are this"
or "men are that" I don't take it to include me unless it
includes me. Then, if it includes me, I think about whether
it is something I accept as part of myself and cannot or
will not do anything about, or whether it is something
I might consider trying to change.

[F4lconF16]

42. +1

You said it very well.

[Gravitycollapse]

35. I've heard if you keep asking a question, it's premise eventually becomes true.

[pipoman]

36. And dodging a question after several inquiries

Means that the question can't be answered without the unfortunate truth coming out.

[Gravitycollapse]

37. I've literally answered your stupid question in this very thread.

Ignoring my answer is a personal problem which you alone possess.

[pipoman]

38. If 14 is the answer

we have nothing further to talk about. Blanket application of some bad behavior on all men is no better than what you are on about in the op..

[Gravitycollapse]

39. Two things...

My answer to your question is in post 19. And calling it "some bad behavior" is an understatement for the ages. Not only is the issue not small, it pervades every aspect of society. Not only is it not simply a few men, it is vast swaths of men.

Will that finally stop your incessant whining or should I write it all down on paper and mail it to you?

[pipoman]

40. Misogyny and misandry have no bounds..

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Would you like to expound on that?

[Gman]

21. The sexuality of a naked body is in the eye of the beholder

Be the beholder male or female. That's how it's supposed to work. Nothing wrong with that. The wrong happens when the male and even female act without consent.

[ErikJ]

22. Why are we the only primate to be naked?

To have enlarged breasts?
increased sexual dimorphism?

But then again, tropical tribal people who are always nude make much less of nudity than clothed societies. And with more gender equality usually.

[Heathen57]

23. K&R

IMO, a woman of any age should be allowed to walk down the street naked, and should be let alone. What that takes is the teaching of self control to our children, and our elders, as well as tolerance for humans.

It won't happen in my lifetime, much to my disappointment. But we can look to some European countries for inspiration where the woman's breast in not an object of ridicule or a force to drive men to lust.

[cer7711]

29. Hmmm . . .

The post-post modern impulse towards objectification vis-a-vis graphic pornographic imagery re-contextualizes pervasive gender normative bias as an ubiquitous, heterogeneous and power-dynamic-driven semanticist/objectivist demiurge of triumphal chauvinist eroticism. In opposition an Ur-culture deconstructivist-weighted dialectics of sex, gender and erotic preference counter-poses a conscious and subconscious subversion of the objectifying male privileged gaze—a paradigmatic shift at once existential and transformative, anti-normative and sociologically-leveling that, if willingly and readily adopted (through learned adaptations and libidinous re-channeling of mythopoeic eruptions of the collective unconscious into overt substantiations of trans-, bi- or hyper-sexual being-qua-being community-based sex play and syncopated mass orgasming) has the potential to ramify human sexuality into an erotics of conscience both intrinsically intriguing and extrinsically compelling. Or so many of us hope . . .

[Gravitycollapse]

43. And when you say "community-based sex play" you mean what exactly?

[ismnotwasm]

30. I'm having a lot of fun rereading Barbara Walker's "encyclopedia"

No, she wasn't the best scholar or researcher, but she hit a few balls out of the park-- so to speak

Anyway she goes waaay back to antiquity to find where some this bullshit originated from, it's fascinating, and what she got right is amazing. And yes, sacred prostitution is in there-- NOT the "oldest profession" but a very old spiritual ritual-- one that didn't always end up very nice for the receiver. Modesty, romance, origins of words, various a Gods and Goddesses-- it's a blast to read, and then come here and listen to people who believe sexual history started with the Victorian age.