The whole study is about sexual objection. They correlate than compartmenalisation with sexual objection.
It isn't; because the studied correlates this objection to the media; which refers to sexual images of women. Modelling, or rather glamour model comes under that, ergo, it demonstrates this.
Once again, it is. Because the study relates sexual objection to the media, it means the media are part of the reason why women normalise the idea of themselves as 'sexual objects', and why they come to compare themselves women.
It does; The fact that we do this without thinking implies it's a natural reaction, study author Gervais said. But at the same time, since both men and women view women as the sum of their sexual parts, it's likely a result of culture and media, not just biology - so headlines like "Objectifying Women Isn't Your Fault" from the Men's Fitness magazine website don't really hold water.
Yes they have; as I've explained time, and time again. The BBC article references a inquiry conducted by Lord Leverson, which concludes that women are failed to be respected in regard to dignity, and equality, with issues in regard to sexual objectification, passivity, women as mothers and wives, and lastly how women are represented in terms of 'doing' things such as being in politics, to being sexual objects and so on. Two of the 3 I've posted are studies supporting my arguments; saying so over and over again won't change that.
I didn't. My point of passivity, was women overall in the media. My argument was never 'page 3 is only bad because it's passive; and if this wasn't the case it'd be fine.'
It did. Both reports mention sexual objectification. There is a category in the BBC report regarding 'sex objects', and the title of the UNL study is 'women are seen as sex objects men are seen as people' and it goes on to further mention sexual objection. The words are there; that cannot be denied, as seen in the quotes from the article I've posted and even the title itself. Sexual objectification has big relation to page 3; because page 3 is sexual objectification.
No; because straight women aren't attracted to other women; ergo sexually assessing them isn't biological. As the UNL study points out - which you don't think is BS - that women do this shows it's a product of culture and media, with the quote on this being posted earlier in this post. And it's not common sense to see women as a pair of tits; or as an arse. No wonder women being seen as 'people' is such a struggle////
But many do. That's the issue.
Tbh, I suspect some of the male posters aren't really bothered about p3. They're just happy that some women don't like it.
Tbh, I suspect some of the male posters aren't really bothered about p3. They're just happy that some women don't like it.
Yeah, a lot of this is about being resentful of an idea in which women exist outside of being there simply for male entertainment. Whenever this idea is questioned people generally don't like it; but if sexual objectification didn't affect women, then women's appearance wouldn't be relevant in general debates, women wouldn't be used as eye candy in TV presenting in the way men aren't; Hollywood would be 'okay' with the idea of women aging, and we'd see a far more diverse view of women in the media rather than mainly sexualised images; which doesn't reflect society and the way women are in the real world.
Yeah, a lot of this is about being resentful of an idea in which women exist outside of being there simply for male entertainment. Whenever this idea is questioned people generally don't like it; but if sexual objectification didn't affect women, then women's appearance wouldn't be relevant in general debates, women wouldn't be used as eye candy in TV presenting in the way men aren't; Hollywood would be 'okay' with the idea of women aging, and we'd see a far more diverse view of women in the media rather than mainly sexualised images; which doesn't reflect society and the way women are in the real world.
Oh I agree with you but some of the men on this thread are dyed-in-the-wool misogynists (as evidenced by their posting history) and you're never going to get through to them. They're just enjoying the idea that The Sun has got one over on the 'feminazis'.
Oh I agree with you but some of the men on this thread are dyed-in-the-wool misogynists (as evidenced by their posting history) and you're never going to get through to them. They're just enjoying the idea that The Sun has got one over on the 'feminazis'.
Indeed, and when this is all died down I think most people will get back to 'hating' The Sun. The Sun's in the limelight now, but's temporary; especially when Murdoch comes out with another silly tweet generalizing groups of people.....
EDIT: And, today Emma Watson has gave a fantastic speech today as Davos. Thankfully, a figure like that is quite influential on young girls as a counter to the culture of The Sun, and the Daily Mail that women are only body parts...
That's the difference. When some random bloke shouts 'nice tits', it's hardly great to know you're just a pair of tits to someone. It's not really puritanical to want women's mainstream representation to be for what they say and do, rather than as sex objects for the gratification of others.
Funny you should say that (bib) as i've had precisely that said to me....no not tits but bum.....and it wasn't from a woman either! It was a young lad i used to work with but i'm not gay and neither was he, he was just being cheeky....but personally i found it hilariously funny. It cracked me up!
Emma Watson has gave a fantastic speech today as Davos. Thankfully, a figure like that is quite influential on young girls as a counter to the culture of The Sun, and the Daily Mail that women are only body parts...
I think I remember that. She's a smart girl to be fair, not particularly pretty, but does the girl next door look without any effort. I've nothing bad to say about Emma Watson
In your opinion! You aren't really conveying a majority view here....that's purely your personal view.
Not really. If a man shows his bum on TV, it's likely that it won't be seen as sexual - for example a man showing his bum suddenly won't become something having to be shown after 9pm. Whereas female nudity, particuarly showing bare breasts is seen as sexual, and programming with this content is generally shown after 9pm. e don't have magazines when men's bum as the central focus within it's pages, as we do with magazines regarding female nudity, especially topless women.
Depends in which context you are referring. If relationships then ideally both would be 'pleasing' each other otherwise it ain't going to work!
I'm not quite sure precisely what context you are using the word 'pleasing'.
In general. Women don't exist to please men; and men don't exist to please women. And pleasing in the context of existing to gratify the desires of a man purely.
I think I remember that. She's a smart girl to be fair, not particularly pretty, but does the girl next door look without any effort. I've nothing bad to say about Emma Watson
Not really. If a man shows his bum on TV, it's likely that it won't be seen as sexual - for example a man showing his bum suddenly won't become something having to be shown after 9pm. Whereas female nudity, particuarly showing bare breasts is seen as sexual, and programming with this content is generally shown after 9pm. e don't have magazines when men's bum as the central focus within it's pages, as we do with magazines regarding female nudity, especially topless women.
Surely this should be the real issue then. Breasts should be normalised, not censored.
Yeah, a lot of this is about being resentful of an idea in which women exist outside of being there simply for male entertainment. Whenever this idea is questioned people generally don't like it; but if sexual objectification didn't affect women, then women's appearance wouldn't be relevant in general debates, women wouldn't be used as eye candy in TV presenting in the way men aren't; Hollywood would be 'okay' with the idea of women aging, and we'd see a far more diverse view of women in the media rather than mainly sexualised images; which doesn't reflect society and the way women are in the real world.
Oh brother.....here we go again with your favourite trendy tags!
Have you considered re-locating to go and live where you would not be an 'object' or 'sexualised image' that you believe women are here, and could live happily ever after where no female flesh is on display.....anywhere?
Naturally all the freedoms you have been used to enjoying here as an individual would be gone and you would need to get used to living a life of repression and servitude.
I think you'd fit in quite well once you learnt that. :cool:
In general. Women don't exist to please men; and men don't exist to please women. And pleasing in the context of existing to gratify the desires of a man purely.
I'd even suggest that some women exist to twist men's heads, untwist them, twist them again because the bloke was unable to explain the initial twisting. You are correct that women don't exist to please men, as most don't, but occasionally you meet someone on your wavelength who you enjoy spending time with no bollox involved.
Surely this should be the real issue then. Breasts should be normalised, not censored.
I think part of that 'normalisation', though would be a de-sexualisation of breasts - allowing breasts to be seen in contexts were they aren't automatically viewed people as 'sexual', and where breasts don't = sexual. Part this is a media which doesn't sexualise breasts all the time.
Oh brother.....here we go again with your favourite trendy tags!
Have you considered re-locating to go and live where you would not be an 'object' or 'sexualised image' that you believe women are here, and could live happily ever after where no female flesh is on display.....anywhere?
Naturally all the freedoms you have been used to enjoying here as an individual would be gone and you would need to get used to living a life of repression and servitude.
I think you'd fit in quite well once you learnt that. :cool:
No, because even in those countries women are seen as sex objects; thus the covering up of women because of the 'fear' of these men of not being able to control themselves.That women are so 'sexual', they'll make men slaves to their desires. But tbh, I don't really think I should have to be move to not be considered an object - I'm human, and I don't think it's too unreasonable to want to be seen as human.
I'd even suggest that some women exist to twist men's heads, untwist them, twist them again because the bloke was unable to explain the initial twisting. You are correct that women don't exist to please men, as most don't, but occasionally you meet someone on your wavelength who you enjoy spending time with no bollox involved.
This forum won't let me respond with a knowing smiley face with the wink and sticky out tongue emotions, as It claimed it was too short of a message, so have this response instead.
I think part of that 'normalisation', though would be a de-sexualisation of breasts - allowing breasts to be seen in contexts were they aren't automatically viewed people as 'sexual', and where breasts don't = sexual. Part this is a media which doesn't sexualise breasts all the time.
.
Oh I agree with that, but that doesn't mean you have to censor anything.
I think I remember that. She's a smart girl to be fair, not particularly pretty, but does the girl next door look without any effort. I've nothing bad to say about Emma Watson
Yeah she says "women need to be equal participants in the home and workplaces...".
Yep i'm all for that.
One section where i used to work they struggled to even get men to come in and work there....and women never went anywhere near it!
I've got a Garage in need of re-roofing. She's more than welcome to come and sort that.
Don't just talk the talk Emma.....you have to walk the walk.
Not really. If a man shows his bum on TV, it's likely that it won't be seen as sexual - for example a man showing his bum suddenly won't become something having to be shown after 9pm. Whereas female nudity, particuarly showing bare breasts is seen as sexual, and programming with this content is generally shown after 9pm. e don't have magazines when men's bum as the central focus within it's pages, as we do with magazines regarding female nudity, especially topless women.
Not sure if you've realised but actually it's you doing all the 'sexualising' and 'objectification' about the female anatomy. You appear to be manically obsessed to the point of control freakery. I find some of your views quite disturbing tbh.
In general. Women don't exist to please men; and men don't exist to please women. And pleasing in the context of existing to gratify the desires of a man purely.
Errrm......right.
So by that conclusion everyone must be leading pretty damned miserable lives then!
I'd even suggest that some women exist to twist men's heads, untwist them, twist them again because the bloke was unable to explain the initial twisting. You are correct that women don't exist to please men, as most don't, but occasionally you meet someone on your wavelength who you enjoy spending time with no bollox involved.
LMAO!! :D
But somehow i think PP would consult her reference manual on the Prism of Sex before that could happen. ;-)
There were some posts on page 58 which I saw and didn't get the chance to respond to so...
religp, NP3 did not just compare images of women 'doing things' with page three but with The Sun's content regarding women in general. Given that the media is 'full of women doing things', the conclusions of Lord Leverson's report, seen in the BBC Link are a bit weird, are they not? Because they go against that conclusion.
tghe-retford, on the Hansard report; she's no longer even the leader of the Green Party last time I saw; that's Natalie Bennett these days. But that's her personal view; and that view has not suddenly changed the aims of the campaign. Furthermore, I consider it highly unlikely that she'll become deputy PM; and even then, as we saw with the Lib Democrats, having a low proportion of MPs in the HoCs, seriously undermines your chances of having a significant impact on government policy. As it is, I think an SNP/Labour coalition, a minority Conservative government or even a minority/small majority Labour government are more likely scenarios than the Greens being in government.
jra.....they're meaningless because you say they're meaningless? As far as I've see the use of 'three-dimenensional' is hardly that uncommon; and nor is it always used in a scientific context. In that regard, I was joking as I was trying to make clear with the smilie I used. Three-dimensional, means different things in different contexts; in this context it refers to 'having, or appearing to have extension or depth'.
Bulletguy...it's not me doing the 'sexualisation' or 'objectification' - as I've noted in the examples given to you in my post regarding television content, and magazine content I've shown how society sexualises breasts, far more than men's bums. That's not me doing the sexualisation or objectification; it's companies such as the BBC, certain 'magazines' and so on that are. And tbh, I find your views that women exist to please men a bit 'disturbing.' Some how, I don't think the majority of women think that, nor do they think that life would be boring if their central focus wasn't pleasing men all the time. There's generally much more to life than sex and romantic relationships, as someone whose done both (and thought both were overrated).
I've actually changed my mind. I agree with some of the panelists on Question Time that it's probably just Murdoch trying to get publicity for it. Strange how it came back after a very short period of time.
jra.....they're meaningless because you say they're meaningless? As far as I've see the use of 'three-dimenensional' is hardly that uncommon; and nor is it always used in a scientific context. In that regard, I was joking as I was trying to make clear with the smilie I used. Three-dimensional, means different things in different contexts; in this context it refers to 'having, or appearing to have extension or depth'.
Maybe it is common in your circle, but from what you've posted, you associate in a very different circle than I do. And all these buzzwords you keep coming out with, like 'sexualisation', 'objectification', 'prism of sex', 'dimensional' and your latest 'compartmentalize'. Does anybody normal actually use any of these expressions on a regular basis in everyday life. You're sounding like a stuck record with your incessant use of buzzwords to the point of tedium.
Yes, but men's bums aren't seen as completely sexual; they are not sexualised to the universal degree in which breasts are! That's the difference. When some random bloke shouts 'nice tits', it's hardly great to know you're just a pair of tits to someone. It's not really puritanical to want women's mainstream representation to be for what they say and do, rather than as sex objects for the gratification of others. Women exist outside the realm of pleasing men.
If you hear a man shouting 'nice tits' at a women, that doesn't necessarily mean you only just have 'nice tits', i.e. you are just a pair of tits. They might like your face, bottom, legs etc. as well, but there isn't time to say all that in one go. Besides, it would look rather dickish if they said, 'Nice tits, nice arse, nice legs and nice face'. Besides, how likely is any of that going to happen anyway, in general. Men might be thinking these things, but few will actually say it out loud to a persons face.
Thankfully, we don't live in a world where we can all mind read, as I think we'd all be in for a shock.
It took you 60 pages to work that one out. I'm willing to bet most men don't give a toss whether page 3 stays or goes.
Maybe it is common in your circle, but from what you've posted, you associate in a very different circle than I do. And all these buzzwords you keep coming out with, like 'sexualisation', 'objectification', 'prism of sex', 'dimensional' and your latest 'compartmentalize'. Does anybody normal actually use any of these expressions on a regular basis in everyday life. You're sounding like a stuck record with your incessant use of buzzwords to the point of tedium.
And we get it. You don't particularly like men.
It's not common, but it's not that uncommon that thee words are that unusual - well, at least if you're interested that sort of thing. And buzzwords - really? Given sexual objectification, and the concept of objectification in general has been talked about in regards to the media, it's hardly a meaningless buzzword. Just because some reject the idea that objectification exists doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't. I'm talking about objectification and sexusalisation like a 'stuck record', because my argument is about that. If my argument is that sexually objectifying women is a negative thing, and that I don't believe women should mainly be portray as that, then I'm going to use those words a lot! You appear to think that if a word isn't a word you use in every conversion suddenly it's meaningless.
And ah, BIB: the accusation of man-hating. I knew it'd come. As it is, I can see many page 3 supporters don't exactly like women, either. Well women with their tits out, and want to be seen in a sexual way. Other women...well that's a different story.
If you hear a man shouting 'nice tits' at a women, that doesn't necessarily mean you only just have 'nice tits', i.e. you are just a pair of tits. They might like your face, bottom, legs etc. as well, but there isn't time to say all that in one go. Besides, it would look rather dickish if they said, 'Nice tits, nice arse, nice legs and nice face'. Besides, how likely is any of that going to happen anyway, in general. Men might be thinking these things, but few will actually say it out loud to a persons face.
Thankfully, we don't live in a world where we can all mind read, as I think we'd all be in for a shock.
It's dickish thing to say someone has 'nice tits'; and that kind of catcalling has happened to me, which is why I mentioned it. It's not something I should know, and nor do men need to air that view. It implies I am some sort of object to comment on, and observe, as if I was on sale. Just because I go out, doesn't mean I'm public property. And yes, certainly I wouldn't want to the read the minds of many, and find out exactly what they thought of women...then I thin quite a lot of women would be in for a shock.
We need to ban it. Protect the kids and stop objectifying men and women.
I find all these comments about us having to stop objectifying women quite hilarious.
Most ladies spend a lot of their time and money making themselves look attractive (clothes, makeup, perfume etc) , and long may they do so. as a red blooded male I am all in favour of it. But if that isn't objectifying yourself ladies, what is ?
I find all these comments about us having to stop objectifying women quite hilarious.
Most ladies spend a lot of their time and money making themselves look attractive (clothes, makeup, perfume etc) , and long may they do so. as a red blooded male I am all in favour of it. But if that isn't objectifying yourself ladies, what is ?
Of course you do. Most men don't even acknowledge sexual objectification, probably because they don't know what it is like to be sexualised and viewed as only having value for one thing. I don't really see why it's so unreasonable to view women as more than sexual objects and to stop objectifying women. You can find someone attractive y'know, without objectifying them. Then again it does seem many on this thread have a difficulty with that idea, which is unfortunate.
I also don't see how putting make-up is 'objectifying' - I wear make-up, for myself, because I like it. Not literally because I want to be seen as a sexual object - I'm sure many of women out there feel the same. It appears anything which does anything to make you look nice - do you hair, wear a nice top, suddenly means you deserve to be seen as a sexual object. And surely that's part of the problem - that women, in general are seen as sexual objects.
Of course you do. Most men don't even acknowledge sexual objectification, probably because they don't know what it is like to be sexualised and viewed as only having value for one thing. I don't really see why it's so unreasonable to view women as more than sexual objects and to stop objectifying women. You can find someone attractive y'know, without objectifying them. Then again it does seem many on this thread have a difficulty with that idea, which is unfortunate.
I also don't see how putting make-up is 'objectifying' - I wear make-up, for myself, because I like it. Not literally because I want to be seen as a sexual object - I'm sure many of women out there feel the same. It appears anything which does anything to make you look nice - do you hair, wear a nice top, suddenly means you deserve to be seen as a sexual object. And surely that's part of the problem - that women, in general are seen as sexual objects.
It's all a one way street with you. Women can (and do) objectify (now you've got me bloody saying it) men all the time.
It's not common, but it's not that uncommon that thee words are that unusual - well, at least if you're interested that sort of thing. And buzzwords - really? Given sexual objectification, and the concept of objectification in general has been talked about in regards to the media, it's hardly a meaningless buzzword. Just because some reject the idea that objectification exists doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't. I'm talking about objectification and sexusalisation like a 'stuck record', because my argument is about that. If my argument is that sexually objectifying women is a negative thing, and that I don't believe women should mainly be portray as that, then I'm going to use those words a lot! You appear to think that if a word isn't a word you use in every conversion suddenly it's meaningless.
Yes, if you do keep using a word often enough, it does indeed become meaningless, just like if you use the f word all the time, it loses its impact.
And ah, BIB: the accusation of man-hating. I knew it'd come. As it is, I can see many page 3 supporters don't exactly like women, either. Well women with their tits out, and want to be seen in a sexual way. Other women...well that's a different story.
This thread is 60 pages long (and counting) and I don't really want to get bogged down in a lengthy debate with you on this issue, as frankly I cba.
So, I'll cherry pick a few posts and points from time to time.
When I said you don't particularly like men, that doesn't mean you are a man hater. Dislike and hate are not usually the same thing. Hate is an intense dislike, not a usual/normal dislike. That may sound a bit pedantic, but it's a scale thing.
For instance. I dislike some people, but I don't hate them.
Comments
Tbh, I suspect some of the male posters aren't really bothered about p3. They're just happy that some women don't like it.
Oh I agree with you but some of the men on this thread are dyed-in-the-wool misogynists (as evidenced by their posting history) and you're never going to get through to them. They're just enjoying the idea that The Sun has got one over on the 'feminazis'.
EDIT: And, today Emma Watson has gave a fantastic speech today as Davos. Thankfully, a figure like that is quite influential on young girls as a counter to the culture of The Sun, and the Daily Mail that women are only body parts...
Some men don't like it either, in fact a lot of the NMP3 campaigners are male.
I've never read the Sun in my life, but I don't want to live in a world where things are banned just because they offend some people.
Funny you should say that (bib) as i've had precisely that said to me....no not tits but bum.....and it wasn't from a woman either! It was a young lad i used to work with but i'm not gay and neither was he, he was just being cheeky....but personally i found it hilariously funny. It cracked me up!
Depends in which context you are referring. If relationships then ideally both would be 'pleasing' each other otherwise it ain't going to work!
I'm not quite sure precisely what context you are using the word 'pleasing'.
I think I remember that. She's a smart girl to be fair, not particularly pretty, but does the girl next door look without any effort. I've nothing bad to say about Emma Watson
In general. Women don't exist to please men; and men don't exist to please women. And pleasing in the context of existing to gratify the desires of a man purely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law?
Surely this should be the real issue then. Breasts should be normalised, not censored.
Have you considered re-locating to go and live where you would not be an 'object' or 'sexualised image' that you believe women are here, and could live happily ever after where no female flesh is on display.....anywhere?
Naturally all the freedoms you have been used to enjoying here as an individual would be gone and you would need to get used to living a life of repression and servitude.
I think you'd fit in quite well once you learnt that. :cool:
I'd even suggest that some women exist to twist men's heads, untwist them, twist them again because the bloke was unable to explain the initial twisting. You are correct that women don't exist to please men, as most don't, but occasionally you meet someone on your wavelength who you enjoy spending time with no bollox involved.
BIB: I don't think I've ever denied this.
Anyway, goodnight.
This forum won't let me respond with a knowing smiley face with the wink and sticky out tongue emotions, as It claimed it was too short of a message, so have this response instead.
Oh I agree with that, but that doesn't mean you have to censor anything.
Yep i'm all for that.
One section where i used to work they struggled to even get men to come in and work there....and women never went anywhere near it!
I've got a Garage in need of re-roofing. She's more than welcome to come and sort that.
Don't just talk the talk Emma.....you have to walk the walk.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/emma-watson-delivers-another-moving-speech-about-gender-equality-165409358.html
Errrm......right.
So by that conclusion everyone must be leading pretty damned miserable lives then!
But somehow i think PP would consult her reference manual on the Prism of Sex before that could happen. ;-)
religp, NP3 did not just compare images of women 'doing things' with page three but with The Sun's content regarding women in general. Given that the media is 'full of women doing things', the conclusions of Lord Leverson's report, seen in the BBC Link are a bit weird, are they not? Because they go against that conclusion.
tghe-retford, on the Hansard report; she's no longer even the leader of the Green Party last time I saw; that's Natalie Bennett these days. But that's her personal view; and that view has not suddenly changed the aims of the campaign. Furthermore, I consider it highly unlikely that she'll become deputy PM; and even then, as we saw with the Lib Democrats, having a low proportion of MPs in the HoCs, seriously undermines your chances of having a significant impact on government policy. As it is, I think an SNP/Labour coalition, a minority Conservative government or even a minority/small majority Labour government are more likely scenarios than the Greens being in government.
jra.....they're meaningless because you say they're meaningless? As far as I've see the use of 'three-dimenensional' is hardly that uncommon; and nor is it always used in a scientific context. In that regard, I was joking as I was trying to make clear with the smilie I used. Three-dimensional, means different things in different contexts; in this context it refers to 'having, or appearing to have extension or depth'.
Bulletguy...it's not me doing the 'sexualisation' or 'objectification' - as I've noted in the examples given to you in my post regarding television content, and magazine content I've shown how society sexualises breasts, far more than men's bums. That's not me doing the sexualisation or objectification; it's companies such as the BBC, certain 'magazines' and so on that are. And tbh, I find your views that women exist to please men a bit 'disturbing.' Some how, I don't think the majority of women think that, nor do they think that life would be boring if their central focus wasn't pleasing men all the time. There's generally much more to life than sex and romantic relationships, as someone whose done both (and thought both were overrated).
It took you 60 pages to work that one out. I'm willing to bet most men don't give a toss whether page 3 stays or goes.
Maybe it is common in your circle, but from what you've posted, you associate in a very different circle than I do. And all these buzzwords you keep coming out with, like 'sexualisation', 'objectification', 'prism of sex', 'dimensional' and your latest 'compartmentalize'. Does anybody normal actually use any of these expressions on a regular basis in everyday life. You're sounding like a stuck record with your incessant use of buzzwords to the point of tedium.
And we get it. You don't particularly like men.
If you hear a man shouting 'nice tits' at a women, that doesn't necessarily mean you only just have 'nice tits', i.e. you are just a pair of tits. They might like your face, bottom, legs etc. as well, but there isn't time to say all that in one go. Besides, it would look rather dickish if they said, 'Nice tits, nice arse, nice legs and nice face'. Besides, how likely is any of that going to happen anyway, in general. Men might be thinking these things, but few will actually say it out loud to a persons face.
Thankfully, we don't live in a world where we can all mind read, as I think we'd all be in for a shock.
I find all these comments about us having to stop objectifying women quite hilarious.
Most ladies spend a lot of their time and money making themselves look attractive (clothes, makeup, perfume etc) , and long may they do so. as a red blooded male I am all in favour of it. But if that isn't objectifying yourself ladies, what is ?
Of course you do. Most men don't even acknowledge sexual objectification, probably because they don't know what it is like to be sexualised and viewed as only having value for one thing. I don't really see why it's so unreasonable to view women as more than sexual objects and to stop objectifying women. You can find someone attractive y'know, without objectifying them. Then again it does seem many on this thread have a difficulty with that idea, which is unfortunate.
I also don't see how putting make-up is 'objectifying' - I wear make-up, for myself, because I like it. Not literally because I want to be seen as a sexual object - I'm sure many of women out there feel the same. It appears anything which does anything to make you look nice - do you hair, wear a nice top, suddenly means you deserve to be seen as a sexual object. And surely that's part of the problem - that women, in general are seen as sexual objects.
It's all a one way street with you. Women can (and do) objectify (now you've got me bloody saying it) men all the time.
Yes, if you do keep using a word often enough, it does indeed become meaningless, just like if you use the f word all the time, it loses its impact.
This thread is 60 pages long (and counting) and I don't really want to get bogged down in a lengthy debate with you on this issue, as frankly I cba.
So, I'll cherry pick a few posts and points from time to time.
When I said you don't particularly like men, that doesn't mean you are a man hater. Dislike and hate are not usually the same thing. Hate is an intense dislike, not a usual/normal dislike. That may sound a bit pedantic, but it's a scale thing.
For instance. I dislike some people, but I don't hate them.