How to respond to the "don't view woman sexually argument" within the context of shaming

girlwriteswhat · 2013-10-20T18:02:54+00:00

A woman on YouTube did an excellent video on this very subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUhW41Qpjg

jolly_mcfats · 2013-10-20T18:10:50+00:00

The shaming in that language is "possible conquests" when you could easily say that "possible lifemate" would also apply.

I've noticed that when complaining about "nice guys" the desires of the "nice guy" is always reduced to sex, whereas I think that most of these "nice guys stuck in the friend zone" are after everything that a relationship offers- the love, the sex, the affirmation, the humor, the pleasure of mutual support and care.

A final example is this whole "men are told that society owes them a hot girl" meme that goes around. What men are actually told by society is that they have to perform to be worthy of love, and that the magnitude of their performance is correlated to their worthiness. It's different from the message women get, which is that they have intrinsic worth. Every time you see a story in which the guy gets the girl, it's because he just weathered adversity to prove his worth. And it's never just about sex- it's about romantic love.

I think that when heterosexual men's desire to pursue relationships is reduced to mere carnality, that's every bit as offensive as saying that women only exist to satisfy men sexually. They are both acts of ignoring the humanity of the person in question.

Alzael · 2013-10-20T18:37:02+00:00

I understand that looking at a human being as a person and not an object is morale and right

This is really bs, however. Objectification is simply a natural extension of how human thought works. We constantly objectify people because we are largely incapable of viewing people as such unless we have a degree of closeness to them. When you go to a restaurant,the waiter is just a guy that you're paying to bring you food. You don't really care about his family life, or his troubles, or his personality beyond how it relates to you. Not because you're a bad person, simply because you have neither the time nor the mental capability to fully humanize every person you meet.

Sex is the same, our sexual desires are entirely based on objectification. For both and women. The only difference is in the type of objects. Men objectify women based on looks, whereas women objectify based on utility. That's why women get hot over guys with money, guys in uniforms, guys who look tough and hunky, etc.

The difference is that most guys will admit to doing this. Feminists (and a lot of women) want to pretend they don't. Or if they do that it's somehow different.

elebrin · 2013-10-20T17:42:04+00:00

This is my usual response:

"Yep, I view women as objects. I view men as objects too. Most of the time, in my life, all other people are objects. Walking down a sidewalk, they are objects in my way. At work, they are roadblocks preventing me from getting done what I need to or helpful objects that make shit happen more smoothly. When driving, they are really dumb objects in really heavy, fast moving objects that may want to smash into my heavy object. I don't have time nor motivation to consider the hopes and dreams and desires and needs and wants of every single person I see. I'm a pretty emotional, empathetic dude which you may not realize. Trying to understand every bit of humanity would break me down into a pile of emotional goo and that wouldn't be good for anyone. So don't take it personally when I consider you an object because that is how we all treat each other most of the time."

nigglereddit · 2013-10-20T18:50:04+00:00

Objectification is a very strange idea.

It rests on the idea that looking at a woman's body is looking at an object - that in effect, the woman and her body are separate and her body is an object inside which a real person is living. We are then asked to ignore that shell and somehow see and admire real person inside it.

The reality of course is that our bodies are every bit as much a part of us as our intelligence, sense of humour, charisma and imagination. Admiring a persons body is no different to admiring any of those other things.

That's the refutation. You're not separate from your body. You are your body. When I admire your body I admire you.

intensely_human · 2013-10-20T19:54:42+00:00

How can we concisely refute this pretense?

By saying this: "It is perfectly natural for me to think about mating."

The problem is the simple and pervasive acceptance of a false belief: that male sexuality is inherently destructive and bad.

You can expand on that by adding the following details if you need to:

You're trying to demonize male sexuality.
You don't have the right to tell me what or how to think.
It's not okay to try to control the direction of my eyeballs.
[in response to the phrase "like a piece of meat"]. I would never fuck a piece of meat. If I wanted a sexual object I'd use my hand. The reason I like to fuck women is because they feel. That is, I favor women over my hand specifically because of women's subjective experience.

In short, I view the word "objectification" through the lens of the subjective/objective dichotomy. Anything in which you respect and consider the subjective (first-person) experience is not objectification. Objectification is when you do not consider the subjective experience of a person - i.e. you only consider them from a third-person perspective.

For example, someone who robs another person has objectified them. The only way robbing someone makes sense is if you only consider the experience of yourself and not the other person.

Women frequently objectify men. In other words, they have zero consideration of the fact that a man has his own separate set of experiences which result from their interaction. A simple example of this is taking a man's coat when it's cold, or demanding that a man stand up when she boards the bus. It only make sense if her feelings are the only feelings happening.

HolySchmoly · 2013-10-20T19:44:38+00:00

"Sex with another person is a human need that produces feel-good hormones and helps people to function better in their daily lives."

ShawnGH · 2013-10-20T20:24:14+00:00

Human sexuality is not possible to ignore. Passing on genes is the prime fucking directive. Those who don't do it are removed from the gene pool over time. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an imbecile.

2013-10-21T08:09:43+00:00

First things first, I don't think the guy did anything bad by viewing someone in a sexual context. Sexual context isn't inherently bad, it's only bad if you force a sexual context onto someone.

But for real, guys, this is ridiculous. Everyone is a complete moral agent. You are responsible for your actions and your ideas and your beliefs completely. Sure you're not responsible for your sexualty, but your views on sexuality are entirely changeable.

VIEWING PEOPLE SEXUALLY IS CULTURAL, NOT BIOLOGICAL.

MEN ARE NOT ANIMALS! We can't be degraded or backed into a corner by using the excuse that "Hormones made me do it". No, its a conditioned cultural response that every man has the ability to change.

If we're going to start saying "Oh guys I can't control how I view sex it's because of testosterone, I'm just a mammal I'm not a full moral agent with cognitive thought and choice" Then you're asking to be treated like an animal and put down, or to be treated like a child and be forever watched by a nanny-state government Like an un-rehabilitated pedophile.

I hope to god you wouldn't want either of those situations.

thr0waway33 · 2013-10-20T17:37:33+00:00

Can we not agree that male hormones drive this behavior?

Hetero males are born with certain urges that must be overcome, but is it fair to judge our brains on what our biology drives us towards?

What??? Are you suggesting men and women are not the same, and there's more than patriarchy???

nihilist_nancy · 2013-10-20T21:56:10+00:00

My response would be "Maybe you could set aside your hate-filled ideology for a minute and realize this is a plea for help."

yatwa1234 · 2013-10-20T17:55:03+00:00

Women will never understand or admit the existence of male biological imperatives because they don't experience them. Because no woman has ever, in all of human history, looked at a man and said "i need to know what his balls and asshole taste like; i bet they're both sweeter than pumpkin pie and ten times as satisfying and i'm about to cum just thinking about the taste of his bodily fluids," they assume that societal indoctrination must be at the root of male sexuality and desire rather than billions of years of evolution making being intimate and near enough to a woman's body to impregnate her the single greatest dopamine rush ever.

The best thing to do is not respond. The gulf between the sexes is too broad for there to be any understanding. The second best thing to do is point out that being an unabashedly pleasure seeking male is exactly the same as a woman seeking to be strong and empowered and in complete control of everyone and everything around her in her proud stronk womyn empowerment, as those are the biological imperatives of both genders. It won't matter though, because they won't listen.

rightsbot · 2013-10-20T17:20:16+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

The_Cockpit · 2013-10-21T06:01:26+00:00

I don't respond well to shaming...

I kinda like this response.

"The only reason I talk to women is because on some level it generates the prospect of being balls deep in her at some point in the future. Now if that's harsh then let me add when evaluating a woman's worth as a human being I take her personality and I apply it to a man. If she still manages to be worth talking to, she passes. I have, no exaggeration, found 1.5 women in the real world (the AVFM ladies are pretty fucking neat) who have passed that test in my entire fucking life. Wanna be treated as more than fuck toys? Earn it by saying something interesting and thought provoking, that I haven't already read or heard.

Pecanpig · 2013-10-20T19:27:45+00:00

TL;DR: Ignore their complaints completely and continue on your merry way of talking about tits and ass.

PS: Or possibly tell them to stop viewing you as something you are not.

MegaMeatSlapper85 · 2013-10-20T18:38:20+00:00

I don't ever refute it. I don't ever look at a woman as anything other than a potential sexual conquest, and as well, I make sure I'm never seen as anything other than a potentiate sexual partner. Life is way easier when you accept who you are and embrace it.

chosimab0001 · 2013-10-21T01:27:47+00:00

It is shaming, and more importantly, it's overgeneralizing.

Every man is an individual, who has (cultural, not biological) views on sexuality. These (cultural, not biological) views on sexuality cannot be wrong because they're based on opinion (not biology). How much skin is too much, how big should someones boobs be, what kind of clothing should you wear is all a matter of opinion.

what you should say to this person is that "Hey, I have a right to my opinion on sexuality. so long as I'm not forcing my opinion on you, everything should be fine."

... male views on sexuality are cultural, not biological.

whether or not you're straight, gay, bi ect is partly biological, but your views of what is sexual are (mostly) entirely cultural.

nihilist_nancy · 2013-10-20T20:15:40+00:00

How do you figure that some of that shaming comes from the lgbt movement? I don't see it.

One would imagine that both gay men and women would have little interest in men's sexual behaviors towards women.

Title	How to respond to the "don't view woman sexually argument" within the context of shaming
Author	davebilliams
Upvotes	13
Comments	41
Date	October 20, 2013 5:18 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1oued9/how_to_respond_to_the_dont_view_woman_sexually/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-to-respond-to-the-dont-view-woman-sexually.1160833 https://theredarchive.com/post/1160833

Comments