Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For those women who think objectifying women as sex objects is OK [View all]Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)66. Well Bonobo, ignorance requires education, lest it lead to permanant stupidity. Let me help.
What makes you think that by being excited by a woman's body part also means that you become incapable of also appreciating that woman or other women as humans?
It doesn't. But when you only perceive her as that 'part', as say, a bouncing butt filling the screen in a Li'l Wayne video, how can you say you are appreciating her as a human being? You're not. In fact you really can't, since all that's being presented to you are the parts or composite thereof, not a whole person. The woman is reduced from being an entire person, to just being her body, and quite often just specific pieces of her body.
Getting excited by another person's body isn't a problem, it's a component of being a primate. And nobody's saying it IS a problem, despite your continual and frankly saddening desperate lies in an effort to say so. No one is staring aghast at the notion of finding another person attractive. no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise. What people are bothered by is the industrialization of the notion, turning a human person into nothing more valuable than the parts its made of, and then turning those into a salable commodity to sell you a watch or a car or just the fantasy that you will someday fuck that part of that person's body.
Let me show you how silly that is.
You see a football player on TV and think "Damn, he sure can break a tackle!"
Does that mean that you are reducing all football players to being worth nothing other than their ability to break a tackle.
Protest all you want, but that is a perfectly reasonable comparison.
You see a football player on TV and think "Damn, he sure can break a tackle!"
Does that mean that you are reducing all football players to being worth nothing other than their ability to break a tackle.
Protest all you want, but that is a perfectly reasonable comparison.
Does breaking a tackle require training and skill? I'm not a big follower of football, but as far as i know... yeah. That's why they practice. That's why they train, and work out. It's a skill. What's more it's a skill that can be measured objectively - you are good at it, that guy's worse, and he's even better.
Now, how much skill and practice does it have to have a "nice ass"? Is having a nice ass a pinnacle of hard work and talent, the way breaking tackles is? And how exactly does one determine the niceness of an ass? Who determines the standard, how do you know whose ass is nice?
There's also this aspect... "Football player" is a profession. "Woman" is a gender. Football players are not born in pads clutching a ball, but half the population is born female.
If a guy who wants to play football doesn't meet the measurable standards needed for that profession, what happens? Well, he finds something else to do, no big deal.
What of a woman who "fails" to meet the completely arbitrary and subjective standards expected of her appearance? No big deal? No, they're torn apart by the society around them. They are "ugly," "unlovable," "dogfaced," "trashy."
But of course the two examples are exactly hte same, aren't they?
The fact is that what you REALLY want to object to is bad behavior. And I agree. Bad behavior such as harassing or whistling at women on the streets is bad. Ogling their bodies up and down is bad. I get it.
Congratulations on having the absolute basics down. Now if only you could get over your need to mansplain to people how stupid they are when they try to inform you further...
But there is no such thing as "objectifying" that has a magical power. What you call objectifying is merely sexual attraction and as long as it does not create bad behavior among individuals, I think it is ridiculous to make up a thing called "objectifying" and then try to explain away bad human behavior with it.
Like so.
Unfortunately professor, sexual objectification is not something "made up." Nor is it the same as sexual attraction. That you equate being attracted to a person with the mentality that said person exists to sexually perform for you is actually a little disturbing - maybe I can take comfort in assuming that you are honestly clueless about what objectification is and means.
No, it doesn't "cause" bad behavior. But it does support and reinforce it. Our advertising space is pretty literally full of uses of the female body as a product to place - you know the adage, "sex sells," well that's where it comes from. It's really hard to reinforce "good" behavior - treating human beings like human beings, rather than sex toys - when the common culture is reinforcing exactly the opposite.
As for the "I'd do her" comments that you say you've seen, I don't know about that and I really don't care. I don't see it as a problem. I know you do. We disagree. I don't use the phrase myself much, but I have heard women as well as men say it. It's an expression of a healthy sexual appetite.
The problem here is the notion of doing to. As if that's what that person is there for, expressly for you to "do" them.
So no, I do NOT think it is ugly, nor do I think it demeans anyone to find attraction in certain body parts. Nor do I think it is wrong. I think sexuality is one facet of the human experience and should be enjoyed in all its passion and weirdness.
And again you strive to entirely mischaracterize the argument being presented as opposition to sexual attraction, or sexuality as a whole. Funny how that keeps happening no matter how often it is explained otherwise to you. It's almost as if you steadfastly refuse to accept a perfectly realistic answer, in your endless quest to present those who you "disagree" with as damaged psychopaths out to destroy humanity from the base up.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
327 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is reducing a woman's worth to the size/quality of her breasts and other physical attributes
hlthe2b
Feb 2014
#4
Well Bonobo, ignorance requires education, lest it lead to permanant stupidity. Let me help.
Scootaloo
Feb 2014
#66
Bull shit.. Just because YOU have not experienced the repercussions of this kind of attitude
hlthe2b
Feb 2014
#198
Iwill not have someone who uses ugly homophobic language try to tell me how to perceive
hlthe2b
Feb 2014
#214
No, he indicated that he changed his post in order because someone took it the wrong way.
phleshdef
Feb 2014
#229
Yea, and everything is "belittling" when you're such a god damn political emo.
phleshdef
Feb 2014
#315
What about gay men objectifying men? Or Lesbians Objectifying Women?
TampaAnimusVortex
Feb 2014
#272
You seem to (like many others) be confusing gender attraction in relationships with professional
hlthe2b
Feb 2014
#296
But the SI cover is not normal life. It is a commercial enterprise to sell magazines and soap.
Bonobo
Feb 2014
#51
Where did I say I was trying to ban them? I was trying to encourage people to think.
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#250
Actually it has been defined, but I don't think those who promote the idea would like who defined it
Major Nikon
Feb 2014
#82
I have been a Buddhist from before you were a twinkle in your fathers eyes ...
MindMover
Feb 2014
#20
To that degree of separation lay the seeds of mankind's destruction or salvation ...
MindMover
Feb 2014
#35
I do not think that they see "objectifying" as the concrete, all-encompassing thing that some do.
Bonobo
Feb 2014
#22
A question - If a woman wasn't offended by the SI cover, does that mean...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2014
#24
You just hit the nail on the head about what was bothering me about it...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2014
#251
Wow, someone actually asking that instead of telling someone what they thought
The Straight Story
Feb 2014
#36
I am upset with how they objectify sam and dean. Seen them without shirts on!
The Straight Story
Feb 2014
#45
I have a terrible feeling I've been objectifying the man I've been going out with...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2014
#34
OMG ... I am getting so tired of that shit ... YES ... I feel great when my husband loves my tits
tandot
Feb 2014
#29
It's amazing, isn't it? The insane notion that women like fucking? Some women really like it,
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#79
In what way did that SI cover have anything to do with women liking or not liking fucking?
Squinch
Feb 2014
#83
Moving the goalposts to cover for a badly-reasoned OP isn't a very skilled move.
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#85
Your statement: "The insane notion that women like fucking." I'm asking you what the issue at hand
Squinch
Feb 2014
#89
So I guess you won't be answering the question of what the SI cover had to do with women's liking or
Squinch
Feb 2014
#96
Oh....I have no idea what gave you the impression I was going to answer questions from you. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#101
Actually..since the OP asked about our personal feelings, this thread has quite rightly addressed
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#88
I think you are...the problem with poorly-written OPs that question people's feelings is
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#100
I WILL KICK ANALYZING Rexhumbard-ford Bartholamew-Aberdeen Provingrounds Smith ASS
Skittles
Feb 2014
#281
Okay, but you have to say my full name 3 times...while I get to run and hide first!
Rex
Feb 2014
#304
I would say this article on Wikipedia explains the differences of opinions well...
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#59
Liberals post things like "used my boobs to get out of a speeding ticket" on FB all the time...
dogknob
Feb 2014
#56
A while back another DUer gave a very good answer to this question.
Waiting For Everyman
Feb 2014
#70
You have objectified women with your one dimensional OP that insists on a blind dichotomy
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#78
Your outrage at the time this issue is taking away from ending hunger seems to be
Squinch
Feb 2014
#84
Even lawyers get time off. And I appreciate the solidarity shown for the OP...you have your
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#86
Why yes, they do. So your concern about time taken from "other issues" isn't all that valid, is it?
Squinch
Feb 2014
#91
I have no idea what you consider valid, and I care not to find out. But you seem upset
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#93
I generally find that when people say they have "no problem" with something, but spend
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#104
Thank you. You know I asked to be banned in HoF last week...they refused. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#117
That would mean reading HoF. And then posting there. Both of which I've never done, except
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#121
Well, at least as long as you guys are spending your time still fighting over the same
2pooped2pop
Feb 2014
#110
Well, when only 5% of the artists in the Modern Art section of the Metropolitan Museum are female,
KitSileya
Feb 2014
#129
I've only seen two photos, both posted on discussion threads here on DU....
Cofitachequi
Feb 2014
#154
"run of the mill model poses" are designed to sell clothes, primarily to women.
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#230
The problem I see is that society has decided that a woman's primary value is how she looks
btrflykng9
Feb 2014
#138
You're talking second wave feminism to a generation that is more third wave.
craigmatic
Feb 2014
#140
Your starting point is that you are the authority on what counts as objectifying women
ecstatic
Feb 2014
#190
This pseudo-feminist bullshit does nothing but distract from real women's issues that desperately...
phleshdef
Feb 2014
#170
Commodification at what level? Some commodification is fine and shouldn't be ended.
phleshdef
Feb 2014
#181
There are certain things that we all agree are not acceptable. Bigotry and homophobia are two.
Squinch
Feb 2014
#241
Ah - the tone criticism. Yes if they would just keep to issues you don't find uncomfortable.
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#232
There are always some girls, no matter the generation, who aren't interested
RBStevens
Feb 2014
#203
I wish I could find it now, but I can't remember where I read it and who posted
Squinch
Feb 2014
#220
Do you really not understand why many women don't want to see T & A photos on a
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#253
What is your personal definition of objectification, for this specific post?
Butterbean
Feb 2014
#264
Good intentions, shitty loaded "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.
alp227
Feb 2014
#323