# Objectification, Visual Aspects of Sexuality, and the "What % of Women Beautiful" Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408 "2019-01-25T18:19:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2019, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/21 "2019-01-26T00:59:41Z")
Does it count if you see her face in a crowded place? ---
**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:** [January 26, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/22 "2019-01-26T01:34:56Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > In a thread specifically labeled and specifically about a specific subject no one is under any compulsion to read much less participate. Funny how group complaints have spontaneously meandered from surprise graphic sexual violent threads to this. I read the original 4% thread which was on an important topic. When I opened this thread I had neither read nor opened the poll thread, because I thought “oh, brother. Here we go again.” Anyone not working for the cosmetics or fashion industry shouldn’t have any stake in the objectification of women. ---
**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:** [January 26, 2019, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/23 "2019-01-26T01:40:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Just checking here - an objectifying assessment is one where you not only take note of the person’s appearance, but also decide that nothing else about the woman matters, right? So it’s okay for me to look at a woman and notice that she’s got stunningly beautiful earlobes and her nostrils are okay too, so long as I don’t decide that that’s all I need to know about her? > > Because I gotta say, I’m pretty sure I can’t stop my eyes from observing the fact that when a female is in front of me, that she is interacting with light in such a way that an image of her is being presented to my eyeballs. Despite the fact that I’m not a casting director. Obviously _saying_ anything about one’s first impression is a terrible idea, but merely having an opinion that the woman is, in fact, dissimilar in appearance from a golden eagle is okay. Isn’t it? We’re probably genetically programmed to make these assessments. (And also culturally programmed.) But you’re not going to learn anything else about the women you see on the street who some people seem to be categorizing. I wonder if fans of the poll categorize colleagues at work the same way. I’d hope that brains and ability would count for everything and attractiveness would count for nothing. But I’m not betting on it. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2019, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/24 "2019-01-26T01:43:18Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Crapping all over a thread as part of a pseudo-organized brigade desiring to use nagging, social pressure, etc. instead of letting mods run the board is intrinsically thread-crapping. Somebody sticky this; it’s rare that we get thread-crapping masters descending from Mount Crap in a cloud of crap to explain exactly what thread-crapping is. Must it be well-formed and tapered, or can it be scattered and diffuse? Deposit upon us your divine wisdom. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2019, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/25 "2019-01-26T03:01:33Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Somebody sticky this; it’s rare that we get thread-crapping masters descending from Mount Crap in a cloud of crap to explain exactly what thread-crapping is. Must it be well-formed and tapered, or can it be scattered and diffuse? Deposit upon us your divine wisdom. Here’s a hint—posting on the topic of the thread that is indicated by the subject line of the thread is, unlike posting off topic commentary such as “ewww!”, “dat’s gross!”, and “like omg!, guys! _We_ don’t approve of this thread do we?!1?”, by definition, on topic. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2019, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/26 "2019-01-26T03:25:05Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Here’s a hint—posting on the topic of the thread that is indicated by the subject line of the thread is, unlike posting off topic commentary such as “ewww!”, “dat’s gross!”, and “like omg!, guys! _We_ don’t approve of this thread do we?!1?”, by definition, on topic. Cool cool, thanks for supplying examples of dumb stuff, though I don’t think it goes like you think. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2019, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/27 "2019-01-26T03:41:39Z")
Both of you shut the hell up about it. There’s a real thread to be had here. It can happen if you don’t get distracted. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2019, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/28 "2019-01-26T04:41:45Z")
I am a fan of the nuanced post, from whatever perspective it may come. That would be the post that acknowledges the social environment and all of its ongoing political ponderings, and, in reporting what the poster thinks and feels, includes the poster’s ruminations on those political thoughts and discussions and tries to relate them back to their personal experience and so on. I may not feel that my own personal experiences match those of a person who makes a nuanced post, but I am less likely to feel “I disagree with that” — how can you disagree with someone’s stated experience of where they’re at and their efforts to put that in context? — and even less likely to be offended by it. That may just be me, but for me it feels like someone who takes the time to do that is really trying to communicate and share the viewpoint that they have and integrate it into what we’re trying to assemble, a composite understanding of stuff. I’d always rather have honesty and personal testimony than litmus-test-passing attempts, although I don’t care for people who put out arm-crossy sassy “I’m just tellin’ it the way it is” insensitive “common sense” statements that refuse to incorporate any awareness or understanding of ongoing political consideration of long-standing conventional ideas. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/29 "2019-01-28T06:17:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t see a lot of difference for valuing someone for any of their desirable qualities, beauty or intelligence or being good at something or whatever. Certainly that shouldn’t be the only thing, but it is a thing. I agree with that. there’s no difference between assessing someone’s beauty and someone’s intelligence, or ability at sports, or talent at painting, or whatever else. None is particularly superficial, none is particularly commendable. There’s nothing morally better about picking a woman for her smarts (that she has no control about) rather than for her physical appearance (that at least she can improve significantly). What did women who _aren’t_ smart do to deserve being scorned? Do you assume that, contrarily to women who feel ugly, they don’t feel inadequate over their lack of intelligence, won’t suffer from being judged for this reason? If you pick the smart telling the other “sorry, not smart enough”, you think you’ve done something more moral than if you pick the beautiful telling the other “sorry, not beautiful enough”? If not, then why do you think it’s any better to judge a woman for her brain rather than for her body? And I’m not exaggerating for effect or drawing a false parallel here. I think exactly what I said. People should stop feeling sooooo superior because (supposedly) they aren’t “superficial” , and judge women on their IQ rather than their ass, or on their bank account rather than their boobs. Get attracted by what the fuck you’re attracted to, rate women on the basis of their ability to analyze 13th century Kazakh poetry if it’s what gives you a hardon, but stop pretending that being somehow insensitive to the beauty of the human body and/or to its sexual appeal makes you a better person. Sexual desire isn’t a vile and despicable feeling, neither is it insulting to inspire it. I would have expected that these kind of ideas would have started to disappear by now, but this too seems to take longer than we thought. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/30 "2019-01-28T06:35:58Z")
A last thing : most of your life has been and will be determined by who you loved and who you fucked. Who one desires is absolutely central to one’s existence, but somehow people expect us to stop talking about it and even to repress it inside ourselves because desire would be “objectification” (while for some reason, discussing for instance work performance wouldn’t be :rolleyes:)? That’s a _huge_ level of self-censorship, self repression, and denial of human nature that you’re asking for, as far as I can tell for the sake of a new, modern and improved, form of prudery and puritanism. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/31 "2019-01-28T08:08:55Z")
Since discrimination laws have now been in place for a half a century or so, the male/female traits that have been instilled since the beginning of life millions of years ago should be able to be extinguished within our lifetimes. Men judging a mate by her fitness for reproducing and a female judging a mate by his power to provide could just be reasoned away because we are all completely rational beings without being influenced by our biology. Surely the best way to go about this is to shame anyone, especially males, for not fighting their natural instincts. We have to start somewhere, right? ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/32 "2019-01-28T11:42:37Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > A last thing : most of your life has been and will be determined by who you loved and who you fucked. Who one desires is absolutely central to one’s existence, but somehow people expect us to stop talking about it and even to repress it inside ourselves because desire would be “objectification” (while for some reason, discussing for instance work performance wouldn’t be :rolleyes:)? That’s a _huge_ level of self-censorship, self repression, and denial of human nature that you’re asking for, as far as I can tell for the sake of a new, modern and improved, form of prudery and puritanism. Always good to get the French perspective on these matters! (I’m mostly kidding, but not entirely – this does seem to jibe with a certain philosophical stereotype – but that’s unimportant. It’s a key point, well stated, and I agree it needs to be considered.) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/33 "2019-01-28T15:05:04Z")
I dunno. I read those thread titles and besides thinking “well that’s going to go well” thought of the Lake Woebegone line about “all the women are strong …” more than anything else. What defines being beautiful? Or tall? Or strong or intelligent? The only meaning is one relative to others. Is the definition being in the top 50%, the top 10, the top 3%, the top 1%? I’d think that “beautiful” is an exceptional characteristic, not just attractive. Except of course that the person one is attracted to becomes that exceptional person with that exceptional characteristic … so everyone in a relationship should be beautiful (or handsome) to that one person at least. A reasonable discussion could be had about the alleged tendency of women to devalue themselves across many characteristics. About what the word “beautiful” means. About whether women are tougher critics of their physical characteristics than men are of themselves, or are tougher critics of themselves than men are of them, or tougher critics of their physical characteristics than other characteristics, or tougher critics of other women’s looks than men are. But I did not read that op and conclude that those threads would be those conversations. Doesn’t seem I was wrong to pass. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/34 "2019-01-28T15:05:48Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > We are biological and highly visual creatures with billions of years of evolution selecting for mating characteristics. And look where that’s gotten us.\* \*speaking as someone who sees Ohioans on a daily basis. ---
**Author:** ![johnod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@johnod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnod)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/35 "2019-01-28T16:47:31Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > And look where that’s gotten us.\* > > \*speaking as someone who sees Ohioans on a daily basis. To the top of the evolutionary chain/mountain. ---
**Author:** ![johnod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@johnod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnod)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/36 "2019-01-28T16:59:34Z")
Looking at an attractive woman, is normal. Anyone who says different is either delusional, or lying. Commenting on it is quite normal. Yelling "hey baby"across the room at her, not so much. In the poll referenced above most women would not refer to themselves as beautiful. Most shouldn’t they are not, look at the poll in the other thread. Some fat girl on the internet saying how body positive, and beautiful she is etc etc, and she should be a Victoria’s Secret model is not normal. It’s delusional. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/37 "2019-01-28T19:28:53Z")
> [@johnod](#): > > … Some fat girl on the internet saying how body positive, and beautiful she is etc etc, and she should be a Victoria’s Secret model is not normal. > It’s delusional. Beauty, while arguably objectifying, is not objective. Honestly one of the features I find most attractive is comfort and confidence with the skin you’re in. I find my wife to be beautiful but she’d be even more so if she was more sure of that herself. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/38 "2019-01-28T19:59:36Z")
> [@johnod](#): > > …In the poll referenced above most women would not refer to themselves as beautiful. > Most shouldn’t they are not, look at the poll in the other thread. > > Some fat girl on the internet saying how body positive, and beautiful she is etc etc, and she should be a Victoria’s Secret model is not normal. > It’s delusional. I do not share your standards of beauty, and I find them actively harmful to society. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/39 "2019-01-28T20:26:46Z")
So far, pretty much all of the participation has been by people saying (effectively) “no, there’s really nothing wrong with stating that some portion of the female people in this world are sexually attractive”, regardless of whether they go on to pinpoint specific rude or objectifying ways of expressing sexual attraction (especially to individual women) as problematic, etc I was really hoping to engage with the people who found the first thread to be misogynistic or objectifying, either the ones I quoted or others who agree with them. Not because I intend to beat them in a debate or mock them or anything, I actually want to discuss the matter and question my own thinking as well as air it for their consideration and all that stuff. ---
**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:** [January 28, 2019, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408/40 "2019-01-28T20:27:32Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > A last thing : most of your life has been and will be determined by who you loved and who you fucked. Who one desires is absolutely central to one’s existence, but somehow people expect us to stop talking about it and even to repress it inside ourselves because desire would be “objectification” (while for some reason, discussing for instance work performance wouldn’t be :rolleyes:)? That’s a _huge_ level of self-censorship, self repression, and denial of human nature that you’re asking for, as far as I can tell for the sake of a new, modern and improved, form of prudery and puritanism. Are you equating evaluating a person you have a particular interest in with evaluating all people of the appropriate sex? Plus I have to add that in America at least, there used to be a stereotype that intelligent women were unappealing. I hope that’s no longer true, but who knows. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/objectification-visual-aspects-of-sexuality-and-the-what-of-women-beautiful-thread/828408.md?page=3)