# Girls, have some respect for yourselves **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 20, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370 "2005-03-20T00:16:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/81 "2005-03-21T23:39:25Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > I think that was sort of **monstro’s** point. Perhaps women _have not_ demanded sex-enhancing drugs as vocally as men, and perhaps the reason is that sex is not as important a hobby to them as it is for men. ::shrug:: Or maybe it’s because female sexuality is still viewed as something bad and/or dangerous? I don’t see many people in this thread objecting to the fact that a huge number of guy who work out, do it to look good. Why are men allowed to try to ‘get girls’ by being attractive, but if women do, they’re somehow cheating themselves? > [@you with the face](#): > > I cringe when I see kids wearing suggestive slogans on their butts and buying thongs. Me too, but I blame the parents for not educating their children. I mean, you have to do the same thing with your sons too. “If a girl won’t date you because of the car you drive, it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.” etc… > [@you with the face](#): > > My objections to it don’t really stem from a visceral reaction of sex being harmful to children; I think it troubles me because I feel that presenting oneself as a sex object is like presenting oneself as a clown of sorts. I just don’t understand this concept of objectification. I honestly don’t see how it’s any different than using sex appeal. If I want someone to check out my body instead of my mind, that’s my choice. There are varying strategies to getting what you want, and that one seems valid to me. > [@you with the face](#): > > People do not take you seriously. They don’t care about what you’re talking about, how smart you are, or what your goals and aspirations are. They only notice what is on the outside. Body parts. What if that’s all you want? I mean… I’m no slouch, but if I meet a girl and just want to have some fun, I don’t care if she knows about my goals and dreams. Sometimes, consentuial casual sex is all there is to an encounter. And that’s fine. > [@you with the face](#): > > Which is far from unreasonable if you are wearing your typical club getup, with the boobs and the ass deliberately presented to provoke a reaction. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But I do fear that kids today are receiving the message that women garner the most and best kind of attention when they are half naked and shaking their jiggly parts. Which is why parents need to be open, honest, and frank in their discussion of sexuality. If you want a boyfriend/girlfriend who’ll respect you, ‘meet them halfway’ on an intellectual/emotional level. If you just want sex, go for it. > [@you with the face](#): > > Which means they will probably devote less time to developing the kind of character traits that society _respects_ more, such as intelligence and a good sense of ethics. Eh. I don’t believe we should sacrifice individuality on the altar of society. If someone prefers cheap sex to meangingful relationships, and doesn’t want the burden of being an intellectual, who am I to say differently for their life? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/82 "2005-03-22T01:05:00Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Or maybe it’s because female sexuality is still viewed as something bad and/or dangerous? I don’t see many people in this thread objecting to the fact that a huge number of guy who work out, do it to look good. Why are men allowed to try to ‘get girls’ by being attractive, but if women do, they’re somehow cheating themselves? It’s more than just trying to be attractive. Women work out in the gyms, too, and no one is saying that is wrong. No one is saying that it is wrong for women to look sexy, either. I think what people are objecting to is the glut of media messages that say an attractive woman is a “hot” woman devoid of personality, a faceless piece of eye candy. I don’t find it troubling in and of itself (because I’m mature enough to see the bullshit of it all), but I worry that these messages send the wrong signals to kids. > [@](#): > > Me too, but I blame the parents for not educating their children. But why find fault with it at all, if you think flaunting one’s brilliance is no different than flaunting one’s secondary sex characteristics? > [@](#): > > I mean, you have to do the same thing with your sons too. “If a girl won’t date you because of the car you drive, it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.” etc… Right. So to build upon this quasi-analogy, if a guy presented himself in a way that ostentatiously advertised how materially endowed he was (gold Rolex watches, designer brand clothes, sports cars, etc), he would tend to attract women who want to take full advantage of his possessions…and not women who want to get know _him_. That’s not to say that he won’t attract _any_ women who could value him as a person, but by his manner of dress and carriage, he is encouraging people to pay more attention to _what_ he owns rather than _who_ he is. You could also argue that perhaps he wears what he does _for himself_ and not because he’s trying to attract attention, and that could be true. But it’s been my experience that guys like that are insecure and use exagerrated displays of wealth to compensate for areas they feel are lacking…such as, ironically, money and status. Women are similar, except they use their bodies instead of status symbols. > [@](#): > > I just don’t understand this concept of objectification. I honestly don’t see how it’s any different than using sex appeal. If I want someone to check out my body instead of my mind, that’s my choice. There are varying strategies to getting what you want, and that one seems valid to me. I’m not saying sex appeal is a bad thing that should never be employed to attract a mate or attention. Of course it’s your choice how you wish to be viewed by other people. But choices are influenced by values, and values don’t exist in a vacuum. If everyone’s values become Machivellian and we all start seeing each other as means to an end–as a way to either get diamonds or get laid satisfactorily–what kind of choices will people make and will they be good for society? Will marriages dissolve just as soon as the woman gets too pudgy and the man stops being able to afford the requisite Valentine’s Day jewelry? Will little girls think its cooler and more profitable to become eye candy for rich men as opposed to excelling in school? Will little boys grow up with a sense of entitlement, believing that if they have the right “things”, girls should have sex with them? I don’t know the answers, but I wonder. > [@](#): > > What if that’s all you want? I mean… I’m no slouch, but if I meet a girl and just want to have some fun, I don’t care if she knows about my goals and dreams. Sometimes, consentuial casual sex is all there is to an encounter. And that’s fine. I agree, but I’m not talking about individuals. I’m talking about societal views. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe we should sacrifice individuality on the altar of society. > If someone prefers cheap sex to meangingful relationships, and doesn’t want the burden of being an intellectual, who am I to say differently for their life? In a societal sense, can’t you see the value in people prefering meaningful relationships over cheap sex? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/83 "2005-03-22T05:18:40Z")
I think objectification and sex appeal are different because sex appeal comes from within you, and objectification comes from an external source, ie you are somebody’s _object_. You make some excellent points regarding relationships, **you with the face**. In a world full of playas, how much satisfaction do you suppose they get from their relationships? I personally want more from my interactions with other human beings. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/84 "2005-03-22T05:52:52Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > I was watching some music videos last night, and I got a little upset at what I saw. Men showing off their possessions - their nice cars, their jewellery, their nice clothes, their hot, nearly-naked women. Those videos upset me too, but for a different reason. They’re just boring. Every rap video seems the same: someone has a lot of expensive stuff, and he’s having a party with some friends and some hot girls. Is that supposed to be interesting? I already know Puffy is making money and meeting people; I don’t need proof in music video form. ---
**Author:** ![torie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@torie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torie)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/85 "2005-03-22T07:36:14Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Like the OP, I find it sad how many girls are willing, if not eager, to be treated as possessions or objects; but I guess that’s easier than being a fully responsible human being. THANK you! Just wanted to agree. Nothing for me to add. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/86 "2005-03-22T08:49:52Z")
> [@Good Egg](#): > > I did not mean “they” had nothing else of worth. What I meant was it teaches that sexuality is something to be used, like a commodity. It is. But why is this a bad thing? If I had a body and face like those young’ns, I’d be dressing like that and showing it off too (and did when I was young and hot). So? That’s part of who we are. It’s fun. And we do use it, to attract, to get out of traffic tickets, all sorts of stuff. You know, I’ve always been amused at the “these poor young women are being exploited” mentality. Generally said about those in playboy and such. In my mind I always think, “hang on, these girls are getting paid mucho bucks for a few hours of posing, not to mention prizes, tuitions and so on, if you’re talking contests, then men buy the magazine, and all they get is a glossy facsimile of a real girl which costs several dollars per issue…and no real contact with a woman, fake name, fake bio, fake everything, just a pic to look at… who’s being exploited again?” ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/87 "2005-03-22T09:25:00Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > If I’ve given the perception that I’m a prude who thinks women shouldn’t be sexual, please allow me to clear that up - I think women are and should be sexual beings, and sex is good. My problem is with the portrayal of woman as **only** sexual objects. Nothing else about the woman matters as long as she has a pretty face, big, firm boobs and a vagina to be used… But they aren’t “Only” being portrayed as sexual objects. You’re viewing a medium in which that is a large part of the appeal to the audience, that of MTV and its ilk. Of COURSE in that arena it’s going to take up a large part of what is represented. After all, that is what sells, and it holds true for both sexes. It’s just that men’s sexuality is represented in a slightly different way in the media to appeal to we women. Where we’d be scantily clad and jiggly, he’s presented as being buff, strong, mowing the lawn (ala desperate housewives). In other areas of life, The PTA, the business world, and so on, we aren’t in fact portrayed as sexual objects, but for the quality that THAT particular part of our life requires. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/88 "2005-03-22T21:32:29Z")
Most women, like most men, want to be seen as a whole human being. I’ve never met a woman who was respected for her mind that didn’t also want to be percieved as desirable in a physical sense. I think a mountain is being made of a molehill here. I’m going to watch the \*Girls, Girls, Girls \* video tonight. ---
**Author:** ![kimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f0a364/32.png) [@kimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kimera)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/89 "2005-03-22T21:55:13Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > So what ya’ll are saying is that women are just as likely–or even moreso–to experience climax as men during sexual intercourse? > > Men don’t have a huge advantage during sex? It’s not easier for them to experience pleasure since their sensory organ is 100 times bigger than a clitoris? Yes, and if you take a basic course in biology of sex you would realize why that is so. The clitoris has the exact same amount of nerve endings as the penis. Females, in their natural environment and unrestrained by society achieve orgasm just as easily as men. American women are **very** sexually repressed. The rate at which women in our culture orgasm during sex is **not** natural. It is entirely due to society. > [@](#): > > This is true, and this goes EXACTLY to my point about the power differential between men and women. Women can get all the sex they want because there is always someone (read, man) looking for “some”. If I walk out onto the street right now butt-ass naked, there will be someone (read, man) who will stop and service me. If a man walks out onto the street butt-ass naked, how long will he have to wait before a woman pulls over for him? And as I’ve already said before, that is due to societal factors rather than biological ones. Again, why do you think that our species is not very sexually dimorphic? Sexual dimorphism develops because one sex picks among the other sex. Both males and females have been picking and chosing from the other since the beginning of time. You do your fellow females a disservice. > [@](#): > > Yes, we hold the power of selection. It is the woman who decides who fertilizes her precious eggs. But we aren’t usually roaming the streets hungrily, busting at the seams. All we have to do is sit pretty and wait for them to knock on our door. Please. All the men I have been in relationships with I have gone after. The really good men are being chased around and sitting and waiting is not going to get me anything decent. > [@](#): > > I’m reminded of another piece that I heard on NPR about two or three years ago. It was a story about a female-to-male transexual and how the process changed his mind. According to him, prior to receiving testosterone, he hardly thought about sex. But the moment the juice kicked in, he was all about sex. He couldn’t stop looking at asses and breasts. His mind was always focused on fucking. He was horny all the damn time, and it frightened him because it was such a different experience than what he was used to. His story made me grateful for being a female because I can not possibly imagine how hard it must be, constantly thinking about genitalia. I constantly think about genitalia and I am female. Transsexuals are not similar to genetic females or males. Their bodies process the hormones differently and the level of sexual attractions are not the same. I’ve not read about f2ms as much as m2fs, to say if the level of sexual attraction is different in f2ms then genetic males, but I do know that m2fs have a much lower rate of sexual attraction than genetic girls. This is because the amount of testosterone in the female body does not equate with sexual attraction. The changes in your friend might have been psychological rather than biological. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/90 "2005-03-22T22:22:09Z")
I think that **Kimera** and **Canvas Shoes** are doing well, but I’ll throw in a few more pairs of pennies. > [@you with the face](#): > > It’s more than just trying to be attractive. Women work out in the gyms, too, and no one is saying that is wrong. No one is saying that it is wrong for women to look sexy, either. Aren’t they though? If a woman feels sexy in ‘hoochie mama’ getup, isn’t she being looked at negatively by many people in this thread? > [@you with the face](#): > > I think what people are objecting to is the glut of media messages that say an attractive woman is a “hot” woman devoid of personality, a faceless piece of eye candy. I have to admit, I almost never watch TeeVee, so I don’t know so much about that… I can, however, think of a lot of strong female characters in modern fiction, and many who trade on both looks and brains. 7 of 9 springs to mind. (And invokes a pavlovian response in me) > [@you with the face](#): > > I don’t find it troubling in and of itself (because I’m mature enough to see the bullshit of it all), but I worry that these messages send the wrong signals to kids. Anybody who lets the media raise their children deserves whatever they get. If parents are worried about the messages their kids are getting, then they should throw out the damn idiot box. > [@you with the face](#): > > But why find fault with it at all, if you think flaunting one’s brilliance is no different than flaunting one’s secondary sex characteristics? I think it’d be important for parents to teach their kids that it’s important to be a well rounded human being. If a kid was too cerebral, I think it would be healthy to encourage them to play outside. Same thing if a kid was overly physical. Just MHO. > [@you with the face](#): > > Right. So to build upon this quasi-analogy, if a guy presented himself in a way that ostentatiously advertised how materially endowed he was (gold Rolex watches, designer brand clothes, sports cars, etc), he would tend to attract women who want to take full advantage of his possessions…and not women who want to get know _him_. That’s not to say that he won’t attract _any_ women who could value him as a person, but by his manner of dress and carriage, he is encouraging people to pay more attention to _what_ he owns rather than _who_ he is. A valid strategy for an adult with free will, it seems to me. > [@you with the face](#): > > You could also argue that perhaps he wears what he does _for himself_ and not because he’s trying to attract attention, and that could be true. But it’s been my experience that guys like that are insecure and use exagerrated displays of wealth to compensate for areas they feel are lacking…such as, ironically, money and status. I guess I just can’t see this as a problem… that’s the Great Game, that’d dating, that’s life. > [@you with the face](#): > > Women are similar, except they use their bodies instead of status symbols. But if men do it, and women do it, isn’t it an even playing field? Straight men want to ‘get girls’, straight women want to ‘get guys’. > [@you with the face](#): > > I’m not saying sex appeal is a bad thing that should never be employed to attract a mate or attention. Of course it’s your choice how you wish to be viewed by other people. But choices are influenced by values, and values don’t exist in a vacuum. If everyone’s values become Machivellian and we all start seeing each other as means to an end–as a way to either get diamonds or get laid satisfactorily–what kind of choices will people make and will they be good for society? I guess I view this as a matter of free will… society will evolve and adapt to reflect the changing reality of its citizens. If people want to treat each other (or be treated) as pieces of meat, that’s their choice. I don’t believce that someone’s personal sexual prefrences should be influenced, at all, by a societal view. > [@you with the face](#): > > Will marriages dissolve just as soon as the woman gets too pudgy and the man stops being able to afford the requisite Valentine’s Day jewelry? Quite possibly. Then again, I’m sure they already do. If that really would bother you (plural), date someone more like you. > [@you with the face](#): > > Will little girls think its cooler and more profitable to become eye candy for rich men as opposed to excelling in school? Depends on how well their parents raise them. > [@you with the face](#): > > Will little boys grow up with a sense of entitlement, believing that if they have the right “things”, girls should have sex with them? Don’t they already? Men and women who think they’re God’s Gift to the opposite sex are generally cocky. > [@you with the face](#): > > I agree, but I’m not talking about individuals. I’m talking about societal views. Well, to be fair, I think that society is a useful fiction, but still only a fiction. There are only individuals, and we create society. > [@you with the face](#): > > In a societal sense, can’t you see the value in people prefering meaningful relationships over cheap sex? Honestly, no, I can’t. I can see on an individual level where working on yourself will yield greater happiness in your personal life… but if people prefered casual sex, then they’d be happier with that, right? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/91 "2005-03-23T00:52:29Z")
> [@kimera](#): > > Yes, and if you take a basic course in biology of sex you would realize why that is so. The clitoris has the exact same amount of nerve endings as the penis. Females, in their natural environment and unrestrained by society achieve orgasm just as easily as men. > > American women are **very** sexually repressed. The rate at which women in our culture orgasm during sex is **not** natural. It is entirely due to society. I don’t buy that. Orgasm isn’t just about how many nerve endings you have. Without some kind of evidence that women in other countries have no more trouble achieving orgasm than men, I’m going to believe Dr. Drew Pinsky when he says the difference is biological. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/92 "2005-03-23T03:44:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Aren’t they though? If a woman feels sexy in ‘hoochie mama’ getup, isn’t she being looked at negatively by many people in this thread? Can we agree that looking like a hooker has nothing to do with simply being good-looking? > [@](#): > > I have to admit, I almost never watch TeeVee, so I don’t know so much about that… I can, however, think of a lot of strong female characters in modern fiction, and many who trade on both looks and brains. 7 of 9 springs to mind. (And invokes a pavlovian response in me) Well, most of what I’m talking about–the images and the messages–are coming from TV. So if you don’t watch it–I don’t that much either…can you guess why?–then you may not know what I’m talking about. > [@](#): > > Anybody who lets the media raise their children deserves whatever they get. > If parents are worried about the messages their kids are getting, then they should throw out the damn idiot box. On one hand, you say the messages I’m talking about are not problematic, but then on the other hand you imply that parents shouldn’t let their children be exposed to these messages. Why not? If there is nothing wrong with women using their bodies to get attention and power, why would it be harmful to kids to see such values promoted on TV? > [@](#): > > I think it’d be important for parents to teach their kids that it’s important to be a well rounded human being. If a kid was too cerebral, I think it would be healthy to encourage them to play outside. Same thing if a kid was overly physical. Just MHO. When you say “physical” you make it seem like all this time I’ve been talking about gymnastics or soccer. I’m talking about the difference between relying on smarts and talent to attract attention and relying on how your cleavage. > [@](#): > > A valid strategy for an adult with free will, it seems to me. Why do you keep making this a question of free will? No one is saying someone can’t do anything. You make it seem like just because people are able to choose their actions, other people can’t judge them or their motivations. But people do that all the time with behaviors like smoking, overeating, not dressing professionally at interviews, not washing one’s hands after using the restroom, etc. All of those of products of free will, too. > [@](#): > > I guess I just can’t see this as a problem… that’s the Great Game, that’d dating, that’s life. Okay. > [@](#): > > But if men do it, and women do it, isn’t it an even playing field? Straight men want to ‘get girls’, straight women want to ‘get guys’. That’s assuming that A) the numbers of “objectifyees” are the same on both sides and B)the magnitude of objectification is the same on both sides. I’m not arguing that they are the same. The history of women being possessions of men has been a lot longer than the converse. Sexism against women still exists in ways that it does not exist (at least signficantly) with men. > [@](#): > > I guess I view this as a matter of free will… society will evolve and adapt to reflect the changing reality of its citizens. If people want to treat each other (or be treated) as pieces of meat, that’s their choice. \*\*I don’t believce that someone’s personal sexual prefrences should be influenced, at all, by a societal view. \*\* But they are. We are social organisms and are unescapably influenced by others around us. Evolution is not always a positive thing, btw; trends can and do occur that have negative consequences. To throw up our hands and say “well, that’s what society wants…so it makes it all right” is a copout of sorts. Just as I find it disturbing that large chunks of the American people will turn a blind eye to the wrongdoings of their politicians–all in the name of partisianship–I find it disturbing that women think they have the most power when they are shaking their tails and tits. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/93 "2005-03-23T03:55:23Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Can we agree that looking like a hooker has nothing to do with simply being good-looking? Agreed, but it has everything to do with a presentation of sexuality. > [@you with the face](#): > > Well, most of what I’m talking about–the images and the messages–are coming from TV. So if you don’t watch it–I don’t that much either…can you guess why?–then you may not know what I’m talking about. I suppose not. > [@you with the face](#): > > On one hand, you say the messages I’m talking about are not problematic, but then on the other hand you imply that parents shouldn’t let their children be exposed to these messages. Why not? If there is nothing wrong with women using their bodies to get attention and power, why would it be harmful to kids to see such values promoted on TV? Because children first need to learn respect for themselves and individuality, and then later can learn how to use their individuality. I also think that parents should speak to their children about conspicious consumption, good citizenship, etc… > [@you with the face](#): > > When you say “physical” you make it seem like all this time I’ve been talking about gymnastics or soccer. I’m talking about the difference between relying on smarts and talent to attract attention and relying on how your cleavage. My apologies, but that is what I meant. Physicality. > [@you with the face](#): > > Why do you keep making this a question of free will? Because that’s how I see this debate. I may be wrong, I may be slightly off the mark, but that’s honestly how I see it. > [@you with the face](#): > > You make it seem like just because people are able to choose their actions, other people can’t judge them or their motivations. But people do that all the time with behaviors like smoking, overeating, not dressing professionally at interviews, not washing one’s hands after using the restroom, etc. All of those of products of free will, too. I think, however, that in most cases people should keep their noses in their own bussiness. I’m hardly able to pass judgement on someone’s personal behavior which doesn’t affect me. In any case, it’s pretty clear to me where you’re coming from, and I honestly don’t feel further debate will serve to convince either of us of the validy of the other’s position. With your approval, how about we agree to disagree? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/94 "2005-03-23T09:27:07Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > In any case, it’s pretty clear to me where you’re coming from, and I honestly don’t feel further debate will serve to convince either of us of the validy of the other’s position. With your approval, how about we agree to disagree? Okay. Done deal. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/95 "2005-03-23T09:40:46Z")
[QUOTE=kimera] Yes, and if you take a basic course in biology of sex you would realize why that is so. The clitoris has the exact same amount of nerve endings as the penis. Females, in their natural environment and unrestrained by society achieve orgasm just as easily as men. QUOTE]Slight interjection here, according to a TLC (or it could have been Discovery) special on Sex, that I just saw, the clitoris has about 8000 nerve endings, more than any other organ, and many times more than that of a penis. Though I agree with the last part of your statement. I fully believe that it is in great part due to our beliefs about sex that create our difficulties with sexuality. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/96 "2005-03-23T09:54:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote:Last Christmas, I caught my neices singing that horrible Kelis “milkshake” song and mimicking the booty shaking. They didn’t even know what a “milkshake” was (and I wasn’t about to tell them), but no one can tell me that that isn’t disconcerting and that the media had nothing to do with it. Ummm, you mean it’s not a dance move? (sheepish smilie). I’m 45 and I don’t know what it is either. Well, I have an idea now, from the tone of your post, but I didn’t when I first heard the song, I thought it was slang for “sexy, come hither dance move” and I think the song is sorta cute. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/97 "2005-03-23T10:37:55Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > So what ya’ll are saying is that women are just as likely–or even moreso–to experience climax as men during sexual intercourse? Yes, physically we are, as long as the man is “doing it right’ either through our communicating the 'right way” or that he’s just naturally talented in reading women’s bodies. > [@](#): > > Men don’t have a huge advantage during sex? It’s not easier for them to experience pleasure since their sensory organ is 100 times bigger than a clitoris? > > Wow. As far as are they pretty much “guaranteed” the orgasm without too much other than the old in and out? Maybe, but as to easier for them to experience pleasure? Oh hell no, they don’t generally get the pleasure of multiple orgasms afterall, and they’re not ready to go pretty much right after orgasms. > [@](#): > > This is true, and this goes EXACTLY to my point about the power differential between men and women. Women can get all the sex they want because there is always someone (read, man) looking for “some”. If I walk out onto the street right now butt-ass naked, there will be someone (read, man) who will stop and service me. If a man walks out onto the street butt-ass naked, how long will he have to wait before a woman pulls over for him? But by the same token, if a man “went naked” with the sort of quality that sexually attracted a woman, then he WOULD be able to get it all the time. Example? Players. They talk so sweet, they give women, almost any woman who hasn’t already learned better, what she wants to hear, and that is their version of “going naked”. Same with a man “baring” his wallet, or power, or sensitivity, or willingness to commit and buy into the “White Picket Fence” American dream. > [@](#): > > Yes, we hold the power of selection. It is the woman who decides who fertilizes her precious eggs. But we aren’t usually roaming the streets hungrily, busting at the seams. All we have to do is sit pretty and wait for them to knock on our door. [Scooby do]RRuuuuuRRRHHHHUUUUUUHH [/quote] Perhaps you haven’t ever noticed the plethora of “Bride’s Magazine” and mags like Cosmo’s “How to Tell if he REALLY Loves You”, How to ‘Catch’ Your Man" and so on. We roam the streets hungrily alright, just for a different aspect of the human condition. Besides which, if you’re talking strictly sexual relations? Naaaah, we still have to roam the streets if we want the right sort of man, the one who will ring our bell, because just any ole warm body won’t do for most of us. So yeah, we gotta pound the pavement too. > [@](#): > > It’s really hard for me to imagine this, though, but it’s probably because I hardly ever think about sex…“Sexy” women have been called chippies, harlots, whores, sluts, and everything else. And they have always been second best to “good girls”. Maybe they got play on the weekends, but they always had to wait in line at the altar. wow…WOW… Dang, I’ve had my heart broken a number of times, but this just stuns me. Despite my having been raised in a sexually “quiet” home (no overt “sex is dirty” messages, more “sex is for marriage only, and we don’t really discuss it” type home), I have always, since I left home, been highly sexual. Nurture didn’t dampen my enthusiasm one little bit. I feel bad for those for whom it has. > [@](#): > > We both grew up in the mass media generation, **even sven** , and we aren’t that separated from my niece’s generation. So citing “I Like Big Butts” kinda proves my point. Find me a mainstream song from the 1950s or 1960s that was just as bawdy and graphic as “I Like Big Butts”, and maybe I won’t worry so much. Donovan’s Mellow Yellow …Electrical banana Is gonna be a sudden craze Electrical banana Is bound to be the very next phase… Okay, this was 70s, but Chaka Kahn Tell me something Good…Tell me that you like it, Yeah (and her voice, if the lyrics eluded you, told you EXACTLY what she was on about). Can’t remember the band, but a song which I believe was called High, High, High gonna lay on the bed, getcha ready for my body girl… Then there was the rather infamous “Love to Love You Baby” by Donna Summer, wtih all of its orgasmic moans and groans. As for 50s, wasn’t that Chuck Berry’s era? If I recall, many of Motowns hits were pretty racy. > [@](#): > > I wasn’t hired for my smile, my hands, or a tiny piece of my brain. I take pride in the fact that I was hired for my friendly personality, the thinking part of my brain, my ability to follow and give directions, and my educational background. These things are “me”. Not all of me, but the most important parts of me. My smile, my hands, and a tiny piece of my brain are not me. Well of course not, but we’re talking apples and oranges. The things for which you are chosen regarding employment are far and away NOT the same things which would add to your entertainment value should you become an entertainer, NOR would they be the same things which would INITIALLY attract a mate. And we ALL are attracted to the package first. It’s human nature, not sexism. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/98 "2005-03-23T10:48:09Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > A woman who wears hoochie shorts will not command respect in the workplace, unless she’s working at Hooter’s or a strip joint. And who fixes the problems in society if all we do is fuck fuck fuck? Why do you keep going back to this? I think all agree that in the workplace, a certain decorum is required by all employees, not just women. > [@](#): > > Humans devote a ton of energy to sexuality. It was sexual energy that produced the hanging fresco in the Cistine Chapel. It was sexual energy that produced the Moonlight Sonata and formulated the theory of relativity. Michaelango, Mozart, and Einstein weren’t asexual beings, but I’m betting they weren’t constantly cruising for “hotties” either. They channeled their _chi_ into great and wonderful things. It would have been a great waste if they had followed their other “heads”. **Monstro** , I agree with much of what I’ve seen you post here, but on this one, I just gotta say “WHUUUUUT”??? Come ON girl, this is just a version of coaches telling their players that they can’t play ball if they “drain” themselves before the game. Talk about sexist. Are you seriously suggesting that if people are sexually satisfied that they’re less capable? :eek: > [@](#): > > I want women to start creating some great and wonderful things too. Things other than new human beings. What’s so wrong with that? Sex doesn’t have to equal pregnancy, and the fact that some people are “stupid” and allow untimely pregnancies is a whole 'nother issue than women dressing sexily. Just as many slovenly “springerites” wearing dirty sweats and torn tshirts get preggers as women who dress sexily and go out on the town. At least if springer’s and Maury’s “babydaddy” shows can be believed. GOODNESS SAKES here, sex and indulging in it doesn’t make a person less of who they are…Gaaaah, I’m just aghast here. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/99 "2005-03-23T11:16:23Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > It’s more than just trying to be attractive. Women work out in the gyms, too, and no one is saying that is wrong. No one is saying that it is wrong for women to look sexy, either. I think what people are objecting to is the glut of media messages that say an attractive woman is a “hot” woman devoid of personality, a faceless piece of eye candy. I don’t find it troubling in and of itself (because I’m mature enough to see the bullshit of it all), but I worry that these messages send the wrong signals to kids. Kids are smarter and more resilient than you give them credit for, and as **finnegain** has been saying, where kids _are_ somewhat going astray and buying into the image a little too much, that’s where GOOD parents and parenting comes in. If the media had all that much power over us, all of us who came of age in the 70s would still be trying to be the Enjolie woman, brining home the bacon, frying it up in a pan, and never ever letting you forget you’re a man. But oh hell no, we all took up the battle cry started by our sisters in the 60s. My daughter came of age during the Seattle Grunge period. Ooooh UGH how I hated that, this model gorgeous young woman dressing in giant flannel shirts and saggy jeans. She did eventually grow out of it, and is now a parttime model. But at the time, I had to fight her need to follow the trends tooth and nail, and I usually lost. I remember when I was in High School, I used to sneak dresses called “Sizzlers” in my trumpet case, and then change once I got to school, I’m sure my daughter did the same with her “grungies”. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying sex appeal is a bad thing that should never be employed to attract a mate or attention. Of course it’s your choice how you wish to be viewed by other people. But choices are influenced by values, and values don’t exist in a vacuum. If everyone’s values become Machivellian and we all start seeing each other as means to an end–as a way to either get diamonds or get laid satisfactorily–what kind of choices will people make and will they be good for society? Will marriages dissolve just as soon as the woman gets too pudgy and the man stops being able to afford the requisite Valentine’s Day jewelry? Will little girls think its cooler and more profitable to become eye candy for rich men as opposed to excelling in school? Will little boys grow up with a sense of entitlement, believing that if they have the right “things”, girls should have sex with them? > > I don’t know the answers, but I wonder. Sure, some people are going to do that. But the connection isn’t that the current media driven “Britney-esque” is what is popular, but that of the brains, home-taught values, ambitions and so on (or lack thereof) of the specific individual in question. In other words, will some girls decide that how they look is the be all and end all of their value? Yes. Of course, and they have done so since time began, because some people have that mentality. Not because the pop icons of today are wearing skimpier outfits and portraying themselves as arm candy, and nothing else. The “this image is evil and nothing but” crew seems to be seeing a direct correlation between the type of dress and images of arm candy created by popular culture and women “ending up” selling themselves out. Not so. Certain types of women have “sold out” since the birth of man. It’s what’s inside, not what’s outside that makes them “end up” so. > [@](#): > > In a societal sense, can’t you see the value in people prefering meaningful relationships over cheap sex? Stating the realities of sexual attraction and the role looks and dress play in that does NOT then equal believing that we should change society’s opinion regarding meaningul relationships vs. cheap sex. Both have value of different sorts. To address one or the other is not to negate its “opposite”, so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![Ink\_a\_dink\_a\_dink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ec9cab/32.png) [@Ink\_a\_dink\_a\_dink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ink_a_dink_a_dink)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370/100 "2005-03-23T21:49:15Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > So, those of you supporting music videos portraying women as objectified and de-humanized, you don’t see anything wrong with this? This is just the cost of doing business in the music world, that if a female musician wants to be successful she better take her clothes off, and that’s just the way it is? This is women reclaiming their sexuality and becoming sexually empowered? I am sorry, I have to take issue with this. I am a writer. Does this make me a non-sexual person? Does it deny my sexuality as a woman to make my living putting words down and having them read by people? I don’t think so. I write about sex and sexuality. Does your mind now change about denying my sexuality? Does your opinion of me using my femininity to write about sex? Am I demeaning myself and “generations” of others by using my biology to discuss and project an opinion, or report about an activity? I have, upon occasion, written about porn. Do I see that as demeaning to women? No. These are smart, educated women who have made a career choice that works for them and they are empowered enough to do it, despite the protests of people who think it “demeaning” and disempowering. The reverse is the 100% truth. These women ARE empowered. And they made these decisions. And they’re intelligent, savvy, witty, delightful people to know who have business plans for the future, invest for retirement, and all the other things that “normal” people do. Are they objectified? No. They have chosen to use an asset to move ahead in a world which is pleased by certain dimensions. No fault of thier own if they can work within those dimensions. Or augment said dimensions because they WANT to work within those dimensions. I dress sexily upon occasion. I have been known to even flirt upon occasion. Does that limit me as a person because I acknowledge my own sexuality? Oh, I have a hoohoo and tatas, but I call them a cunt and tits. I reclaim the word cunt. I have one, I am proud of it. See the Vagina Monologues for some of my reasoning on why I enjoy the word. If a man asks a woman to do something and a woman does it, how come it’s seen as demeaning? If she steps into a role and takes it even further with her own creativity and acknowlegement of her sexuality, then it’s empowering and empowerment. I apologize, but your line of thinking frightens me almost as much as a recent quote I saw by a keynote speaker at an upcoming feminist convention where the speaker had previously made a statement that “consensual sex and rape are basically the same thing, it’s just that consensual sex is more common.” I am horrified that I have to deny my sexuality to be empowered. I won’t deny who I am. Inky [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-have-some-respect-for-yourselves/295370.md?page=6)