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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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’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.
I agree, but I’m not talking about individuals. I’m talking about societal views.
In a societal sense, can’t you see the value in people prefering meaningful relationships over cheap sex?
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I think that Kimera and Canvas Shoes are doing well, but I’ll throw in a few more pairs of pennies.
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?
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)
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.
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.
A valid strategy for an adult with free will, it seems to me.
I guess I just can’t see this as a problem… that’s the Great Game, that’d dating, that’s life.
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’.
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.
Quite possibly. Then again, I’m sure they already do. If that really would bother you (plural), date someone more like you.
Depends on how well their parents raise them.
Don’t they already? Men and women who think they’re God’s Gift to the opposite sex are generally cocky.
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.
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?
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.
Can we agree that looking like a hooker has nothing to do with simply being good-looking?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Okay.
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.
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.
Agreed, but it has everything to do with a presentation of sexuality.
I suppose not.
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…
My apologies, but that is what I meant. Physicality.
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.
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?
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
