# I have a confession to make. When I see an attractive woman, in any context, my concentration shifts **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 9, 2019, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395 "2019-08-09T06:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/221 "2019-08-15T04:48:34Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > There is a difference between ‘I disrespect this person’ and ‘I’m not even acknowledging that there is a person there.’ There is a difference, but I don’t think changing the single pronoun in the original post moves it from “I’m not even acknowledging that there is a person there” to “I disrespect this person”. The semantics either way indicate that, for at least the duration of the fantasy, he did not acknowledge that the woman is a person. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Your failure to understand that is not a failure on the part of the people who are finding both of these problems in the OP’s posts. It’s probably just me, and I do not mean to say that you or any other poster - even **nate** - is responsible for my lack of understanding on some issue. I thought I might have gotten it with that last post, but I guess not. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/222 "2019-08-15T04:58:40Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Then why did you include all that stuff in the spoilers? The spoiler text was a response to **Broomstick** saying she could not imagine her husband saying with affection: “My wife, I want to have sex with that”. I planned on responding with an analysis of that sentence’s syntax and semantics. The conclusion of my analysis was that a husband (not necessarily **Broomstick** ’s) could conceivably say that sentence with affection. Using “that” will always be dehumanizing, but affection and dehumanization are not mutually exclusive. After I finished writing everything up I realized it had nothing to do with **nate** ’s post, which involves objectification regardless of the pronoun used. I’m a little proud of what I did so I stuck it in a spoiler instead of chucking it. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/223 "2019-08-15T05:32:41Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > … despite the semantic identity in the original post? I don’t think you can say there is semantic identity because our brains don’t work that way. We connect all kinds of additional information to words and phrases based on context. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/224 "2019-08-15T05:52:30Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I don’t think you can say there is semantic identity because our brains don’t work that way. We connect all kinds of additional information to words and phrases based on context. Is it pointless for me to try and understand why others are offended while I am not? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![LiveFree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5e9695/32.png) [@LiveFree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LiveFree)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/225 "2019-08-15T08:42:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I was at the pharmacy yesterday getting my father’s prescription filled. As I was waiting in line, I noticed the woman ahead of me who was at the counter. She was wearing a pair of short shorts and I was looking at her ass and legs. > > Now I did check her out. And this did divert my attention away from what I was doing. But what I was doing was standing in line in a drugstore. > > What I didn’t do: > > I didn’t get so distracted, I lost my ability to stand in line. I didn’t rip off my clothes and attack her. I didn’t make catcalls. I didn’t try to pick her up. I didn’t nudge other men in the area and say “Check out the ass on her.” I didn’t leer and make her uncomfortable. > > We can’t control what happens in our head. But we can control how we act. > > I don’t need women to wear a burka so I can behave. The OP never said any of those things that you “didn’t” do. Those are actions. Why blow his original post out of proportion?? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/226 "2019-08-15T11:10:22Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Hmm. Could it be that some women are conditioned to be more offended by the word “that” then “her”, despite the semantic identity in the original post? > > Sort of like a racial epithet coming from a white man versus a person of the disparaged race. I don’t think this is about “some women being conditioned to be more offended” by one word than another. Because you brought up the issue of race here, let’s try to analogize. Someone can write an offensive and demeaning statement about a racial group. In the context of that statement, E can use a range of terminology – African-Americans, black people, blacks, Canadians, coloreds, negroes, darkies, spooks, spades, thugs, n------. Those words represent a spectrum of disrespectful _terminology_. The issue of what terminology you are using is a valid subject of discussion and criticism, in addition to the message and attitudes reflected by the text as a whole. Choice of words constitutes an additional message, on top of the message conveyed by all the words together. It doesn’t make the overall message better or worse, necessarily, but it is _another thing that the speaker communicated_. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/227 "2019-08-15T11:38:25Z")
Canadians? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/228 "2019-08-15T12:17:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > “Sometimes I think that guy’s a creep” doesn’t translate into “all men are good for is sperm donation”. Neither does “nice ass” translate into “all women are good for is sex”. That’s not what I said. Thanks for twisting a post yet again. The proper comparison is between “men are creeps” vs. “that man is a creep”. Way to misread the post, good job. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/229 "2019-08-15T12:56:06Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > Objectification, at least in the sense I mean it, isn’t about an individual. It’s a paradigm, a general way of thinking about women across our culture. It doesn’t exist in isolation. Saying “I’d hit that” and expecting a generally positive response is establishing and perpetuating the idea that women are objects. Seeing something and having a reaction isn’t that, because that’s physiological, not cultural. There’s no social element at all to the stimulus and the response. Cultural is taking that reaction and framing it in a subject/object relationship, through language. And honestly, if someone’s internal monologue often uses the language of things to describe people, I think they can and should strive to change that, because it’s perpetuating that cultural idea. But it’s not the moment of reaction that is the problem. > > To say it another way, in that moment of lust, I think the woman is neither person NOR object. It’s like, quantum. When we frame that relationship as I/object, especially aloud and to others, that’s when society is being nudged toward a toxic paradigm. Then I think we are close to agreeing, at least about what I am talking about. At least, what I think I am talking about. When I say that I am thinking “nice ass” or something, I am describing the thought in my head, not boasting and not expecting a positive reaction. If it is possible to express that I am thinking like that without nudging in the direction of the paradigm you describe, I can’t tell. > [@Broomstick](#): > > That’s not what I said. Thanks for twisting a post yet again. > > The proper comparison is between “men are creeps” vs. “that man is a creep”. Way to misread the post, good job I was comparing “nice ass” vs. “women are only there for sexual purposes”. Just like “that man is a creep” does not translate to “all men”, and “nice ass” does not translate to “all women”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/230 "2019-08-15T13:55:24Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Canadians? 😕 Southern racists adopt “Canadian” as a euphemism for “black” > **[Southern racists adopt "Canadian" as a euphemism for "black"](https://boingboing.net/2008/01/27/southern-racists-ado.html)** > > The Canadian National Post looks on with mild horror as American linguists report on the growing trend in the American south to use "Canadian" as a masking euphemism for black… > [@](#): > > Last August, a blogger in Cincinnati going by the name CincyBlurg reported that a black friend from the southeastern U.S. had recently discovered that she was being called a Canadian. … > > “After this happened several times with different patrons, she mentioned it to one of her co-workers. He told her that ‘Canadian’ was the new derogatory term that racist Southerners were using to describe persons they would have previously referred to [with the N-word.]” Is term ‘Canadian’ used as racist word? > **[Is term 'Canadian' used as racist word?](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/is-term-canadian-used-as-racist-word/article_315cc6bd-84e9-53e1-9610-b33da71cd9c8.html)** > > Is Canadian' the new black? Perhaps – that is if you're a racist speaking in code. > [@](#): > > Is “Canadian” the new black? Perhaps – that is if you’re a racist speaking in code. > > Recent revelations that the term “Canadian” is being used to replace racist names for black people have got a Texas assistant district attorney into trouble and have left others wondering what exactly it means to be labelled a Canadian in the American south. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/231 "2019-08-15T15:03:49Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I don’t think this is about “some women being conditioned to be more offended” by one word than another. Darn, I thought I had it. > [@Acsenray](#): > > Those words represent a spectrum of disrespectful _terminology_. The issue of what terminology you are using is a valid subject of discussion and criticism, in addition to the message and attitudes reflected by the text as a whole. Choice of words constitutes an additional message, on top of the message conveyed by all the words together. It doesn’t make the overall message better or worse, necessarily, but it is _another thing that the speaker communicated_. My understanding of the offensive nature of profanity (eg: n-, c-, dy-) is that people are conditioned to be offended when they hear that particular word, more offended than if another less-profane word was used to the exact same semantic effect. The fact that not all profanity is offensive in all situations, especially with the N-word, reinforces my hypothesis. People are told from a very young age that profane words are more offensive than non-profane words even when they mean the same thing (_a la_ “darn”, “crap”, or “frick”). In my experience and what I have heard of others, the concept of profanity is instilled with negative reinforcement. This causes profanity to be reserved for especially abusive use, and when people are at the end of a profane statement it tends to be offensive and insulting semantically, which is positive reinforcement. Therefore the offensive nature of profanity is a result of conditioning. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/232 "2019-08-15T15:11:11Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I think I am beginning to understand… would you say the phrase “I want to fuck her” _never_ has the meaning “I want to fuck that female’s body”? Or maybe would you say the phrase “I want to fuck that” _never_ has the meaning “I want to fuck that female’s body”? “Never” is a pretty comprehensive term. I think you’re trying really hard to understand this and I truly appreciate that. What it comes down to is that context is very important with all this. What two lovers say between each other in private can be vastly different than what either would say to anyone else, and some people, in the context of sex play, get off on all sorts of role play. In that context anything could mean almost anything. But, in the context of typical and _public_ speech, referring to a woman as “that” can probably be stated as something you should not do if you want to be polite and respectful. Now, there are definitely occasions when one may not want to be “polite” or “respectful” to a particular person, but the proper way to do that (IMO) is to make it clear that your ire is directed to an individual rather than half the human race. And I suppose that there might be a very rare occasion where someone outside the typical gender binary _asks_ to be referred to as “it” or “that” or some other atypical for a person pronoun in which case you should do so _because it requested that_ but it would be a very, very rare and highly specific instance. Of course, when a man (or a woman, for that matter) says “I want to fuck her” (or him) there is also a subtext of “I want to fuck her (his) body” - that normally is how you engage in sexual intercourse, which is what is being referred to. When my doctor inquiries whether or not I have constipation I’ll most likely say “I had a bowel movement after breakfast” rather than “I took my morning shit after breakfast” even though both convey the same information because one version is more polite than the other. Other alternates are “took a crap” or “defecated”. Again, all convey the same data but they also all carry slightly different subtext or emotional content. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Because if you can construe both “I want to fuck her” and “I want to fuck that” as “I want to fuck that female’s body”, I do not understand why you say “fuck her” is less offensive than “fuck that” in the specific context of **nate** ’s post. On a certain level it’s not important that you understand _why_ but that you understand _it does_. An example from the language/racism file: I do not, for the life of me, understand why it is acceptable for dark-skinned people of African descent to refer to each other by certain word(s) of two syllables starting with “n”. I have read/viewed/asked some trusted friends of that group why this is so because I want to understand the nuances but I have to admit I don’t get it. I’ve been told it’s actually two different words (on my part, I can’t hear the spoken difference even if I’ve seen alternate spellings). I’ve had people try to explain cultural and historical reasoning behind it. I just don’t get it… BUT, because I don’t want to cause offense I refrain from using that term(s). Even to the extent of not using them when discussing them, as in this paragraph. While it would be great if I had a true understanding that is NOT as important as my understanding that using such language will cause hurt and offense to other people, and my choice not to use such language. I also don’t rail about not being “allowed” to use such language when other people are - I am not African-American, while I might have an intellectual understanding of some of their issues I don’t have a visceral understanding and never will. If by refraining from ever using two or three words out of the hundreds of thousands available in the English language I can avoid offense that’s a pretty easy way to be polite and respectful and what they do amongst themselves is THEIR business, not mine. No white person should weigh into that conversation, that would be “whitesplaining” in the worst sense, and insulting and disrespectful. Now, the _particular_ language use in the OP does not rise to the level of the infamous “n-word”, but it does deal with sexism. It’s more important for a man to understand that the language used was offensive to multiple women (so it can’t be dismissed as just one person’s opinion) than exactly WHY it was offensive. It’s even possible that different women find it offensive for different reasons, or there are multiple reasons. Analyzing why can be an entertaining exercise, but it’s not as important as knowing it causes offense. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I had written up a long analysis of those sentences, but on second thought that was largely unnecessary. It would be a shame to just throw it away though, so I’m putting that in this spoiler. That’s an impressive amount of work. However you are missing the forest for the trees. Here’s the analogy: you’re analyzing language as if you were analyzing a fine painting by examining it with a magnifying glass, identifying the chemicals used as pigments, the type of brushes used to make the strokes, oil vs. acrylic vs. some other media, and so forth. And while there is value in such analysis, other people are standing back ten feet and discussing light and shadow, abstract vs. impressionist vs. realist vs. surrealism, and engaging with the visual image and its emotional impact rather than analyzing the structural elements. You are all talking about the same painting, but examining it on very different levels. Likewise, by drilling down through the exact grammar you are analyzing the OP in structural manner while others in this thread are discussing it in the context of cultural and social dynamics, history, and other meta level aspects. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t think **nate** ’s posts come close to showing affection. My point is that, in context, saying “I want to fuck the hell out of her” about a stranger is equally sexually objectifying as “I want to fuck the hell out of that”. TO YOU they are equally bad. TO OTHERS one is less bad than the other (although neither is good). You are not required to understand or feel this on the same level as the women in this thread. It’s totally OK to say “I don’t feel the same way” or “I don’t perceive a difference” as long as you acknowledge that others feel/perceive differently. Which I think you’re doing. To put it more crudely - Because I don’t possess testicles I am never going to understand on a visceral level, the way men do, that getting kicked in the balls is so damn painful for men… but I don’t have to. I just have to understand that getting kicked in the balls is really fucking amazingly painful for men and refrain from performing that action. Probably best I don’t even threaten to do that verbally, it seems to make them uncomfortable just to think about it. > [@Max\_S](#): > > This is unlike you and your husband, because presumably you and your husband are on intimate terms. As you said, you can imagine your husband saying he wants “have sex with her”, where “her” is you but no sexual objectification occurs. With your husband, context matters. Yes, my husband and I were intimate. 🙂 We were also open enough that he would, at times, mention that he found another woman sexually attractive (which was OK - we were both self-confident enough and trusted our partner enough we could discuss sexual attraction to others outside the marriage without worrying that someone was straying). And I remember him saying "I would do _her"_ but never recall him saying "I would do _that"_ He definitely had preferences for certain body parts, but he also very much saw women as individuals, too. Which had a lot to do with why even though he was short, overweight, and disabled he never had problems with getting a girlfriend, gosh darn, it _really does_ work if a man treats women as human beings. (Yes, some women would refuse to give him the time of day because he was short/fat/disabled but he didn’t waste time pursing them, as there were a lot of other women out there who, as he put it, “are really interesting people”.) Granted, that’s anecdotal (based on a 30 year marriage) but while anecdote is not data that doesn’t make them completely useless for illustrating a point. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t think the same can be said about **nate** or any person walking down the street, looking at an complete stranger and thinking “I want to fuck the hell out of her”. No matter how you cut it, that is sexual objectification of the first degree. I see your point but, again, these are things along a spectrum. All of them are objectifying, but how you talk about it can be more or less objectionable. There is “I want to fuck the hell out of her” There is “I want to fuck the hell out of that” There is “I want to fuck the hell out of the fembot” There is “I want to fuck the hell out of that whore” There is… well, you get the idea. It’s not just the idea - that you see a human female and you the adult human male want to fuck her, which is a biological urge and normal - it’s also about how you think/speak about the situation. You’re analyzing the language and the grammar, women are analyzing word choice and emotional nuance. That’s why we’re still having trouble communicating. You are correct - \*grammatically \*there is little to no difference is all those sentences. However, word choice and cultural context makes them significantly different. That is why a language like English has so many words that have such similar meanings - they all convey slightly different messages regarding culture, social status, emotional nuance, etc. For another analogy with race - can you understand that a 50 year old white man referring to a work crew of four 25 year old white men as “boys” carries a very different impact than the same 50 year old white man referring to a work crew of 25 year old black men as “boys”? It’s not about the grammar, or in that case even about the words (which are exactly the same) but about historical and social context and baggage that are very important in modern America. In the OP, a lot of the objections are coming from historical and social context more than the actual grammar and language structure. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Apologies, I clearly misrepresented your position. Accepted but not necessary. We aren’t going to improve the situation without being able to discuss the topic. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Honestly I’m not sure how to avoid unconscious sexism. You feel like I am devaluing your position based on my life experiences, yet I am too dense to understand why you might feel that way. Avoiding unconscious bias of any sort is _hard_ - you’re not even aware you’re doing it. The first step is to actually _listen_ when someone says you’re being offensive instead of having a kneejerk response of “no, I’m not”. I find replaying with “I’m sorry - I did not intend offense and I’m not sure how I did that. What, exactly, am I doing wrong here?” Sometimes it doesn’t work - not everyone wants to discuss things. Sometimes I wind up learning something new. As an example from a few decades back when I first moved to Chicago - in the sub-culture in which I was raised you generally didn’t speak to people you didn’t know in passing. So, working in a large company us white folks who didn’t really know each other would pass each other in the hallways without saying anything. A black co-worker one day asked me why “you white folks” were so incredibly rude. Instead of getting defensive I said “I wasn’t aware I was being rude - what am I doing wrong?” Instead of getting angry she actually explained to me that black people routinely greeted strangers - even if she didn’t know the person at all, even if she had never seen them before, she would say good morning or hello. Basically, she would acknowledge their presence, that they existed as living human beings (that’s actually a paraphrase of what she said, along with a bit of history regarding how slaves used to be treated as part of the furnishing or decor). And I said, oh, I get that, and I mentioned how in my sub-culture you _didn’t_ do that because it was considered polite not to “bother” other people you didn’t know and how the whole “recognized as a person” thing probably wasn’t as important to white people who never had to worry about not being viewed as a full human being in our culture. So, going forward, she said she’d try to take that into consideration that a white person might not be shunning her or deliberately rude as being culturally conditioned not to speak to total strangers, and going forward I’ve tried to make a point of saying “hello” or “good morning” to _everyone_, a practice that serves me very well today working in retail with people from all manner of backgrounds and cultures. Yes, occasionally I get a negative reaction but infrequently enough I can put up with it, the benefits greatly outweigh the negatives. But that’s an example of WHY we need some frank discussions about race, culture, gender, and other divisions in our multi-cultural society in order to make things work. I don’t have to understand things on the same level or to the same degree as another, the important thing is that I understand something is important. It is very important, ESPECIALLY in sexual contexts, for women to feel like that are recognized as a whole human being because for so often we have not been, and still aren’t far too often. This is really not as difficult as some men make it out to be. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, sometimes it’s just as easy as saying “her” instead of “that”. “Woman” instead of “female”. “_I know there’s an entire woman attached to the pair of tits,_ but these tits were AMAZING, I really wanted to titty-fuck, I couldn’t think of anything else…” or “_Her_ ass-cheeks were hanging out and they were so sexy I had trouble remembering there was\* a whole person attached\* to those ass-cheeks, I just want to squeeze them and fuck _her_ and I was so distracted…” Avoid “that” and “it” and other words that dehumanize. Nobody is expecting you to do it perfectly, but at least try. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Sometimes in the end I have to say “I still don’t really understand, but I’ll take you at your word that that is a problem and try to avoid it in the future”. > > My best guess is that next time I make an assertion as I did in post #165, I should state explicitly that I believed “that” and “her” are equally objectifying in context. But I’m not sure why that would convince you that I am not devaluing your position. Well… what works _for me_ is someone saying something like “I still don’t get why this is such a big distinction, but\* I do see that it is important to you.\*” That last bit is important, because it says that even if you don’t see it or don’t agree with me, even if you think I’m wrong, you are still acknowledging my different viewpoint rather than dismissing it out of hand. In other words, we agree to disagree. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Maybe I ought to have explicitly asked **Mijin** to explain how “that” is more objectifying in a way that “her” is not. It’s been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. This can be very frustrating to those of us on this side of the fence, especially since all of us have had to explain our position(s) over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again throughout our lives. It gets tiring. At which point it’s fine to say "I don’t really get it, but I do see that _it is important to you"_ Even better is to say “I’ll try to refrain from using these words and use those other words instead” but it’s not like we can compel you to do so. > [@Max\_S](#): > > But I am afraid my failure to understand how “that” is very clearly objectifying in a way that “her” is not would be seen as sexism on my part. That is a problem. Or several problems, one of which is that we live in a society that has historically been sexist and still is on many levels, and that language itself can have sexist aspects to it, customary language use can be sexist, and we all have a certain level of bias. However, the first step to reducing sexism is to recognize that it exists, including our own sexist behavior we are not aware of until someone else points it out. If you aren’t willing to admit to that flaw there’s no way you’re going to reduce or eliminate it. And I very much include ALL of us in that statement as we all exhibit unconscious bias. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I have now read this thread and the ATMB thread through multiple times and I still don’t understand how you can think the one is more offensive than the other, in context. It’s OK to state that. Your posting has demonstrated you have, in fact, read what we have to say and clearly you are struggling with this. So… you’re honest (point to you) in saying that. I, for one, appreciate your honesty. Now is the time to say that even if you still don’t understand you at least understand that it is important to us. I don’t have to know what getting whacked in the balls feels like to recognize that it’s really painful when it happens to a guy. It’s clear from their reaction that it’s a problem. You don’t have to understand the details of why a phrase or wording is offensive to women if a lot of women demonstrate by their reactions that to them it’s a problem. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I recognize that you and others see a difference, but I don’t understand why. Really, honestly, _that’s progress_. That’s actually what we women on the Dope want. You don’t have to understand on a deep level, you just have to understand that the distinction is important to us. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t understand why, in the context of the original post, “she” is less offensive than “that”. I would think they are both offensive. So far the complaints about that verbiage go along the lines of, ‘you basically dehumanized all women’, but I think using “she” would also dehumanize women. He is still reducing women - strangers - to objects of sexual desire, what difference does it make if he says “she” when he means “that female’s body”? Because one is \*more \*dehumanizing and offensive than the other. It’s not A is good and B is bad - they are \*both \*bad but A is _less bad_ than B. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Finally, though I don’t see why (in context) the word “she” is less offensive to some women than “that”, I do not base this on whether it impacts myself. Even if I agreed that “she” is less offensive, I am still a male and I am not the random woman walking on the street.\*\* My understanding on the impact of language on other people, or the lack thereof, is based on my understanding of other people, which is flawed, but it is the closest thing to empathy I’ve got.\*\* I think that emphasized sentence is true of all of us. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I understand and agree with all that you wrote here. We’re making progress! > > What I don’t understand is why a woman would be more offended if **nate** expressed sexual objectification with unambiguous and unarguable language versus potentially ambiguous and arguable language. Or perhaps I do understand, but just disagree. Yes, I think we’re getting somewhere. It’s a bit messy, but progress often is. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I think people would be rightfully offended at least somewhat either way. He is still objectifying women on the street and endangering himself, his wife, and everyone nearby. Perhaps if he had written “her” instead of “that”, some readers would think there is a small chance that he respected the woman as a person while having sex fantasies. Maybe he was also thinking about caring for her when she’s sick or raising kids or something. Maybe that small sliver of hope is enough to make you say, “you could have at least recognized that she is a person instead of a thing”. Naw… it’s not about “maybe a relationship”. It really is just acknowledging there is a person there. I’ve mentioned about each side having some give. In the case of women, our “give” is that we understand that men really do think about sex all the time, and often that men can be so focused on a bodypart or act the whole woman isn’t in their frame of view. That’s not how I think, but that’s not the point - I can’t discuss these things with men without recognizing that they _really do_ think about this stuff differently than I do. Both sides need a safe space in order for these things to be discussed. Men need to feel like they can talk frankly about what’s going on in their brains without women scolding them or telling them they are thinking incorrectly. Men need to be a more sensitive to how women _feel_ about things. As I have said, sometimes it is as simple as prefacing a statement with _"I understand that women want to be seen as whole people and individuals_ but this is what was going through my head" before going on about the unedited objectifying fantasy in their brain. We all have thoughts that raw and unedited would be offensive to others, but how we talk about them matters. We all shit, but when we talk about it we often use different words that are considered more polite and less crude. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Therefore I disagree that there is a small advantage in saying “her” over “that”. For others, perhaps they really think if he had thought or written “her”, that might indicate a small possibility that he respects women. > > **That’s an explanation I would understand, though I might not agree with it.** That last bit is the important take-away from this discussion. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Maybe I think about language differently than you do. I believe the meaning of the words in context take priority over their normal definitions or connotations. **nate** apparently _thinks that way_ so I am a little hesitant to call him out in a thread about sharing his thoughts, not because he has a sexist mind or sexually objectifies women, but because he accurately relayed his thoughts. The problem with the OP is not just his sexual objectification of women, it’s that his sexual thoughts _make him a driving hazard_ because of how intrusive and distracting they are. He came here seeking validation that he is normal. He is not. Thinking sexual thoughts about women is normal. Being so distracted by those thoughts they disrupt his relationship with his wife and/or make him less attentive to driving is NOT normal. As not only women but several men have pointed out to him. > [@Max\_S](#): > > As I understand it, this objectification is the offensive part of that sentence, so if it is still the same objectification with “her”, why would it be less offensive than using “that”? IF the words were equal yes, but they are NOT equal in regards to objectification and/or offensiveness from my side of the fense. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Hmm. Could it be that some women are conditioned to be more offended by the word “that” then “her”, despite the semantic identity in the original post? > > Sort of like a racial epithet coming from a white man versus a person of the disparaged race. > > I feel awfully stupid now, and that makes a _lot_ of sense. I think you’ve got, or at least you’re getting there. It has more to do with emotional nuance and social/historical context than the grammatical structure. A building can have a sound foundation but still look fugly, and a different external treatment would not alter the foundation but make the whole structure more appealing. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > There is a difference between ‘I disrespect this person’ and ‘I’m not even acknowledging that there is a person there.’ ^ This. One is quite literally dehumanizing. > [@Max\_S](#): > > There is a difference, but I don’t think changing the single pronoun in the original post moves it from “I’m not even acknowledging that there is a person there” to “I disrespect this person”. As long as you understand that that is YOUR side of the fence and the fence has another side we’re making progress. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Is it pointless for me to try and understand why others are offended while I am not? No. The attempt can be important whether or not it is successful. And if, in the end, you still can’t understand why someone finds it offensive you can still acknowledge the other side of the fence and try to refrain from offending others. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/233 "2019-08-15T15:21:53Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > In my experience and what I have heard of others, the concept of profanity is instilled with negative reinforcement. This causes profanity to be reserved for especially abusive use, and when people are at the end of a profane statement it tends to be offensive and insulting semantically, which is positive reinforcement. Therefore the offensive nature of profanity is a result of conditioning. My old psych teacher would kill me. Parents telling kids not to say bad words, and punishing them when they do so, constitutes positive _punishment_. A person on the receiving end of a profane statement which is semantically insulting will associate the profanity (a neutral stimulus) with the insult (unconditioned stimulus), and over time the conditioned response to profanity is to be offended. A person hurling profane insults, upon seeing that the recipient is offended, experiences positive reinforcement as offending the recipient was the desired effect of the profane insult. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/234 "2019-08-15T15:31:09Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Is it pointless for me to try and understand why others are offended while I am not? > > ~Max Not at all pointless. I’m just pointing out you are excluding critical info in your analysis which will make it challenging to figure out. The critical info is what our brains do when processing communication. We aren’t strictly logical, we perform immediate pattern matching and associations to all kinds of other info, we are influenced by feelings, experience, context etc. You can’t look at things like sentence structure and dictionary definitions alone to figure out how a person will feel when they hear something. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/235 "2019-08-15T15:45:40Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Darn, I thought I had it. > My understanding of the offensive nature of profanity (eg: n-, c-, dy-) is that people are conditioned to be offended when they hear that particular word, more offended than if another less-profane word was used to the exact same semantic effect. The fact that not all profanity is offensive in all situations, especially with the N-word, reinforces my hypothesis. People are told from a very young age that profane words are more offensive than non-profane words even when they mean the same thing (_a la_ “darn”, “crap”, or “frick”). In my experience and what I have heard of others, the concept of profanity is instilled with negative reinforcement. This causes profanity to be reserved for especially abusive use, and when people are at the end of a profane statement it tends to be offensive and insulting semantically, which is positive reinforcement. Therefore the offensive nature of profanity is a result of conditioning. > > ~Max I believe the concept of profanity is a red herring in this context. The point is that words have accumulated meanings from the context in which they have been used in society, and choosing to use those words conveys a message _in addition to_ the message contained in the entire text in which those words appear. To Broomstick’s use of the example of the word “boy.” The choice to use that word in reference to black men is itself a communicative message, on top of whatever sentence that word might appear in, which might or might not be deserving of criticism. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/236 "2019-08-15T15:57:15Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > There is a difference, but I don’t think changing the single pronoun in the original post moves it from “I’m not even acknowledging that there is a person there” to “I disrespect this person”. I think it does. Or at any rate using the pronoun for a thing makes it utterly clear that there’s no acknowledgement of the person, while using a pronoun for a person makes it possible that there is. > [@Max\_S](#): > > , despite the semantic identity in the original post? They’re not semantically identical. “That” doesn’t mean the same thing as “her” just because they have the same referent. > [@Broomstick](#): > > On a certain level it’s not important that you understand _why_ but that you understand _it does_. [. . .] It’s more important for a man to understand that the language used was offensive to multiple women (so it can’t be dismissed as just one person’s opinion) than exactly WHY it was offensive. It’s even possible that different women find it offensive for different reasons, or there are multiple reasons. Analyzing why can be an entertaining exercise, but it’s not as important as knowing it causes offense. Quoted for emphasis. All of that is true. > [@Broomstick](#): > > It’s been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. This can be very frustrating to those of us on this side of the fence, especially since all of us have had to explain our position(s) over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again throughout our lives. It gets tiring. Also this, and to further emphasize: it’s not just one poster, or one thread, or one forum, or one message board. It’s the total accumulation throughout our lives. Any individual person asking to have such things explained to them is being, as an individual, perfectly reasonable. But it’s necessary to bear in mind that they may nevertheless be the three thousandth person to want that explanation from the people who they’re asking – and, for that matter, that two thousand of them might not have been asking in good faith. > [@Broomstick](#): > > In the case of women, our “give” is that we understand that men really do think about sex all the time, and often that men can be so focused on a bodypart or act the whole woman isn’t in their frame of view. That’s not how I think, but that’s not the point - I can’t discuss these things with men without recognizing that they _really do_ think about this stuff differently than I do. Here I’m going to disagree with you. There may be overall averages that are different, just like there are overall differences in height – but I don’t think it’s that all men think about sex differently than all women think about sex. Consider the number of men who’ve come into this thread to say that they don’t react anything like the OP, as well as the fact that multiple women have come into the thread to say that we do think about sex in reaction to seeing body parts – perhaps not in the fashion in which the OP describes it, but in the fashion in which some of the men in this thread are describing it. > [@Broomstick](#): > > We all have thoughts that raw and unedited would be offensive to others, but how we talk about them matters. To expand on this, which is true: I wonder whether part of the problem Max is having is that he may think that what people are objecting to in the original post is that the poster has a quick immediate reaction to seeing attractive women that focuses on parts of the women’s bodies, instead of on the women as a whole including considering their personalities. That’s not where the problem is. That sort of immediate physical reaction is as normal as getting hungry when one’s belly’s empty and one sees food; and is no more something that’s reasonable to criticize. And I don’t think people in this thread have been criticizing it (with a couple of possible exceptions in post 51 by CarnalK and post 121 by Max S, but I’m not sure whether that’s what’s being done even in either of those posts.) What people are criticizing is what’s done about that reaction – as in allowing extended major distraction to affect driving, leering, and one’s ability to listen to others; and also as in the specific language being used to describe the reaction. So the problem isn’t that the initial momentary gaze is objectifying. Probably it is; but that’s not what people are complaining about. The objectification in the words chosen to describe the experience is not the same thing as the initial experience itself. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/237 "2019-08-15T16:54:26Z")
No, I wasn’t criticizing the original thoughts in post 51 just the indulgence of them and pretending you’re helpless to indulge them. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/238 "2019-08-15T20:10:14Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I agree, so you and I are definitely miscommunicating. I accidentally used “she” in the post you quoted whereas I should have used “her”. I don’t think usage of “that” is OK, I think “her” is more just as offensive as “that” because even if we put “her” into the original post, the post still shows the exact same sexual objectification. As I understand it, this objectification is the offensive part of that sentence, so if it is still the same objectification with “her”, why would it be less offensive than using “that”? > > ~Max Sorry, I lost track of the thread a bit and thought you were supporting the usage of that. Maybe the OP should respond to my post. “That” is an indicator of the problem, but removing it doesn’t make things okay. And everyone seems to be talking past each other in this thread. My head is spinning. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/239 "2019-08-15T22:59:23Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > “Never” is a pretty comprehensive term. I think you’re trying really hard to understand this and I truly appreciate that. What it comes down to is that context is very important with all this. What two lovers say between each other in private can be vastly different than what either would say to anyone else, and some people, in the context of sex play, get off on all sorts of role play. In that context anything could mean almost anything. What about in music? Michael Jackson’s “P.Y.T.” calls women “things”, but I don’t think many women are offended by that song. It was hugely popular among the girls in high school, like other Michael Jackson songs. Is music another one of those contexts where it might be OK to call women “that”? (certainly not all music) What if we reduce the song to a poem? What if we have the husband recite the poem to the wife? > [@Broomstick](#): > > But, in the context of typical and public speech, referring to a woman as “that” can probably be stated as something you should not do if you want to be polite and respectful. I don’t think **nate** was trying to be polite or respectful, nor do I think his speech qualifies as “typical and public”. He said he was being honest and I believe him. It follows that he literally thought, or thinks it is likely that he would literally think, word for word, “damn, I’d like to fuck the hell out of that.” If he changed the words, he wouldn’t be totally honest - he could still get the point across, but he could not express his thoughts verbatim without using the word “that”. Those internal thoughts are usually private, not public. When **nate** repeats his private thoughts in a public forum, I don’t think that counts as typical and public speech. He also apologized: “Sorry in advance. Sometimes I just feel like posting what is on my mind”. I can only conclude that he is sorry for being impolite or disrespectful. If he realized that his post was impolite or disrespectful, but still posted it, either 1) he did not realize there was another way to phrase his post without being impolite or disrespectful, or 2) he thought there was no way to phrase his post without being impolite or disrespectful. Either way **nate** still thought he should post the thread. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Now, there are definitely occasions when one may not want to be “polite” or “respectful” to a particular person, but the proper way to do that (IMO) is to make it clear that your ire is directed to an individual rather than half the human race. In my opinion, the disrespectful act occurred when **nate** sexually objectified the women on the television screen and on the scooter. I think all sexual objectification is disrespectful, and those acts of disrespect were towards individual people. I do _not_ think **nate** made this thread to talk about objectification of individual people. In my opinion, the original topic of this thread is **nate** and other men’s involuntary objectification of a whole class of people, “attractive women”. My read of the original post is that **nate** thinks neither he nor 98% of men have any control over their thoughts when they see an attractive and scantily-clad woman. He doubles down on that in [POST=21801661]post #119[/POST], where he wrote: > [@nate](#): > > When I state I get distracted by an attractive woman, I’m not saying I’m acting on it. I do believe I have some sort of agency in my actions, but I don’t have any decision in my next thought or emotion. > > And so you might say, “ahh… but you remaining distracted is an action that you could control”, and maybe that’s a good point. But… I don’t think voluntary disrespect is the same as involuntary disrespect, but I think both can (and do) happen. Much like conscious and unconscious bias. If we assume that “what is on [**nate** ’s] mind” is his and other men’s involuntary disrespect of “any attractive women”, and that “any attractive women” is a class of people, then his and other men’s involuntary disrespect of a class of people is on **nate** ’s mind. Now let us assume that **nate** wants to discuss what is on his mind. He actually wrote “posting what is on my mind” but I’m stretching that into a discussion because that’s what we do here: we discuss things. If **nate** wants to discuss what is on his mind, and his and other men’s involuntary disrespect of a class of people is on his mind, **nate** wants to discuss his and other men’s involuntary disrespect of a class of people. That is the intended topic of this thread, in my opinion. I can be wrong. You might have a different opinion but I don’t know for sure what you think the topic of the thread is or why. In an effort to avoid Socratic dialogue (which I would prefer, but have been told is extremely frustrating), I try to form my own opinion first and lay out my whole argument so you can point at the parts you disagree with, and I can learn how we differ. As for politeness, I think his decision to post about objectifying _any_ attractive women is impolite, regardless of whether he actually does so or not. Objectifying any attractive women is disrespecting a class of women, and I would think a post about disrespecting women would make some women uncomfortable. Women are people and making people uncomfortable is impolite, in my opinion. Therefore **nate** was impolite when he decided to make his post. As I said above, I think he was apologizing for his impoliteness. If true, he considered that women might be made uncomfortable but still decided to make the post. I can only guess that he couldn’t find a way to present the topic without being impolite, and thought his making the post was more important than making women uncomfortable. That isn’t terribly crazy given some of the taboo subjects **Cecil** has written about. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Of course, when a man (or a woman, for that matter) says “I want to fuck her” (or him) there is also a subtext of “I want to fuck her (his) body” - that normally is how you engage in sexual intercourse, which is what is being referred to. When my doctor inquiries whether or not I have constipation I’ll most likely say “I had a bowel movement after breakfast” rather than “I took my morning shit after breakfast” even though both convey the same information because one version is more polite than the other. Other alternates are “took a crap” or “defecated”. Again, all convey the same data but they also all carry slightly different subtext or emotional content. I am presently thinking these “subtexts” and “emotional content” are the results of behavioral conditioning. But then again I think all spoken language is influenced by behavioral conditioning. The reason I might not associate “that” as being more offensive than “her” might simply be because I don’t have a lot of negative experience being called a “that”. Similar to the operant conditioning for profanity I laid out in [POST=21807500]post #233[/POST], the word “that” might trigger a conditioned response in you but a neutral response in me. For some woman, perhaps reading the word “that” evokes the gazing, catcalling, the sexual discrimination, the sexual harassment, the rape, and the crying, lots of crying alone, sometimes in a dark corner trying to convince herself that she is a person with value and not a mere sexual plaything. Constant sexism in her history hotwires the very use of “that” to refer to a woman with a number of red flags in a way that “her” does not. This is an explanation I understand _and_ agree with. What do you think? Why didn’t I get this before? In hindsight it looks like this is exactly what everyone has been saying. I’m going to cut off my response here because if you actually agree, the rest is moot. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395/240 "2019-08-15T23:23:11Z")
I don’t think that “conditioning” is as strong a hook as you think it is. It implies something systematic and intentional. You don’t have to have been “conditioned” to respond to the word “that.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-confession-to-make-when-i-see-an-attractive-woman-in-any-context-my-concentration-shifts/838395.md?page=13)