[–]marymaude12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This was really hostile out of the gate. I don't think it's phrased in a way to foster real communication.

Objectification theory has its history rooted in feminism, yes - but I think that it's beyond sex. A person is objectified if they are treated as a tool for someone's purposes; or as if they are interchangeable; or as if it's permissible to damage/destroy them; or if their feelings and emotions don't matter. Objectification can act as if they are not autonomous, as if they are owned by another, for example.

Although it may have been popularized by the feminist movement, objectification is far more than the male gaze and sexuality. Even Marx discussed objectification in his works. People focus a lot on the sexual attraction aspects of objectification, and forget about the idea of objectification as using people as tools or as if they are interchangeable.

Objectification is certainly a thing, and broader a term than what you're articulating in the post. I think that there could be an interesting discussion on whether a feminist understanding of objectification infringes upon the natural expression of male sexuality (I think it can), but the way you've worded your post doesn't really facilitate it.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This was really hostile out of the gate. I don't think it's phrased in a way to foster real communication.

Have to say that I agree with you. I face palmed a bit. Of course, I also facepalm when you say:

Even Marx discussed objectification in his works.

but whatever.

If you'll allow me to have a shot at the thesis, I might phrase it like this: in spite of what the actual definition of objectification might be, it is often used as a tool to pathologize male sexuality.

But now the problem is, for this to be a CMV, I've just stated it in a way that cannot be falsified - not because it's logically flawed, but because "often used" is true if I can find several people using it that way, which I totally can. I'm not willing to phrase it as "always used" because then all you'll need to falsify it is to find one person not using it that way (and that one person could be you).

It might be fun to have a discussion with someone who actually believes it is never used to demonize male sexuality, but you admitted that you think it can be used that way. I don't think there can be a CMV version of this from TRP's side.

I'll also note that there is a previous discussion in this subreddit on the subject:

http://reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2fi831/i_think_the_widespread_demonization_of/

[–]marymaude2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why do you facepalm about Marx? He discussed the objectification of people in the labor market (I believe it's his theory of alienation, but someone correct me on that if I'm wrong...). Not really going into the merits of his arguments, just wanted to point out that philosophers have been talking about objectification of people (usually the common man for use as a tool or expendable force for war or labor or something like that) long before the feminist movement picked it up. It's clear the OP meant sexual objectification, but in the interests of a civil debate, I did want to point out that objectification had been around as a theory before that.

I think the way you've phrased it IS a better way to put it. You might be able to find someone to argue that it's never used to demonize male sexuality, but I think it has, so I am not the person for that argument. I think anyone trying to make that argument would have a difficult go of it, as there are some feminist theorists who are openly hostile to men. Perhaps argue that most of the time when it is used (e.g., cite specific times it's been used), it has been hostile to male sexuality. Or perhaps list five quotes on objectification and have someone from the BP team argue that it isn't demonizing male sexuality, and then have BP put up five quotes they think are helpful in talking about it, and have TRP explain how they do demonize male sexuality? That might be closer to changing someone's view.

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why do you facepalm about Marx? He discussed the objectification of people in the labor market (I believe it's his theory of alienation, but someone correct me on that if I'm wrong...). Not really going into the merits of his arguments, just wanted to point out that philosophers have been talking about objectification of people (usually the common man for use as a tool or expendable force for war or labor or something like that) long before the feminist movement picked it up.

Well, feminism pretty much is Marxism applied to the sexes, with women cast in the role of the proletariat and men cast in the role of the bourgeoisie. So that's hardly surprising.

Problem is Marxism got objectification wrong. Objectification is even the wrong word for the phenomenon.

To understand correctly what we are talking about, we need to consult the person who got it right: Abraham Maslow. In Toward a Psychology of Being, he describes the phenomenon of Deficiency-Cognition as opposed to Being-Cognition.

Deficiency-Cognition is what Marx and his ilk mislabeled as "objectification". It is the phenomenon of evaluating an object in the environment (living or not) for its merits as a means to fulfill a current need (psychological or physical). Its counterpart, Being-Cognition, is the act of observing features about an object (living or not), without prioritizing one over the other, because it meets no current needs, or there are no current needs.

While this describes the same phenomenon, it corrects a number of things Marx got dangerously wrong.

Marx thought objectification was a moral evil, caused by greed. Maslow realized that D-Cognition was a natural and necessary process.
Marx thought being objectified was ipso facto harmful. Maslow realized that it was sometimes neutral, and sometimes vitally necessary (someone who never viewed by anyone else as a means to an end is a person with no job, no sexual partners, and no home).
Marx thought of objectification as an act solely performed by members of a privileged class upon members of an unprivileged one. Maslow realized that all sort of person view other people, and things, as a means to an end, all the time. We would be unable to get through a single day without doing this.

I cannot order food at a restaurant without viewing the waitress as a means to an end. I cannot eat the food without viewing it as a means to an end. I cannot pay for the food without the waitress viewing me as a means to an end. I cannot earn money to pay for the food without viewing my fellow employees, or my customers, as a means to an end.

In calling out the quasi-fictional "objectification of women", feminism follows its characteristic paradigm of:

Noticing a part of life that is occasionally detrimental or inconvenient.
Pretending it is a special evil solely experienced by women.
Demanding that Daddy Patriarchy, usually in the form of the government, rescue the helpless women from this evil.

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This was really hostile out of the gate. I don't think it's phrased in a way to foster real communication.

Not liking the tone with which I provide my argument does nothing to argue my view. If it's any consolation, my intent is not to be hostile.

Objectification theory has its history rooted in feminism, yes - but I think that it's beyond sex. A person is objectified if they are treated as a tool for someone's purposes; or as if they are interchangeable; or as if it's permissible to damage/destroy them; or if their feelings and emotions don't matter. Objectification can act as if they are not autonomous, as if they are owned by another, for example.

What if I told you that you just perfectly described what Feminism teaches women to do to men, and not the other way around?

Although it may have been popularized by the feminist movement, objectification is far more than the male gaze and sexuality. Even Marx discussed objectification in his works. People focus a lot on the sexual attraction aspects of objectification, and forget about the idea of objectification as using people as tools or as if they are interchangeable.

Feminists do this to men, so women are the real objectifiers by this definition.

Objectification is certainly a thing, and broader a term than what you're articulating in the post. I think that there could be an interesting discussion on whether a feminist understanding of objectification infringes upon the natural expression of male sexuality (I think it can), but the way you've worded your post doesn't really facilitate it.

That might be true, but the way you articulate it perfectly describes modern Feminists to a t.

[–]XYEaQMZJvS 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]kraetosWell-adjusted individual3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kraetosWell-adjusted individual-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]fchsBlue Pill Man6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]calignantchaos 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]calignantchaos 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrimsonDeep-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]calignantchaos 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]calignantchaos2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYF0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]calignantchaos1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYF1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrimsonDeep-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ROOTderp7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Listen:

Objectifying people isn't necessarily bad. Objectification isn't necessarily bad. Objectification was around before feminists. It literally just means to view something as an object. People did this before feminism -- it did not "create [the term] to demonize male sexuality".

People objectify people all the time. Sometimes it's fun to do so. Sometimes it's fun to get drunk with someone, maybe you just met them, maybe it's your SO, whatever, and proceed to bang each other like objects. No one has a problem with this.

When you walk down the street and see people, you see them as objects. You don't know them yet. Practically everyone is seen as an object first before they are humanized by interacting with them. We could talk about subject-object relationships and make comparisons using art theory, but we won't.

Anyway, the part where objectification becomes something that people don't like is when people become incapable of seeing other people as individuals/humans with their own agency and subjectivity. Or when people willingly choose to view other people as objects.

So, when people quote things from TRP saying things like "wimin suck, they are just fuck holes amirite guys?" people have a problem with it because they are willingly choosing to view people as objects and deny them agency.

"Objectification" isn't some term that feminists use to keep us men down -- I'm sure women have objectified you, even. Probably a lot. And it's pretty much guaranteed that you will be in the future. Picking and choosing when and how you do it is what is important.

[+]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Objectifying people isn't necessarily bad. Objectification isn't necessarily bad. Objectification was around before feminists.

So Feminists just stole it to make it into a weapon to demonize male sexuality then?

It literally just means to view something as an object.

To view "something" as an "object" you say? I'm clearly in good hands here.

People did this before feminism -- it did not "create [the term] to demonize male sexuality".

Right, but did they take it to re-purpose it as a weapon to demonize male sexuality? Cause that's how it's used pretty much I would say 100% of the time. What is its intended usage as far as Feminist ideology is concerned?

People objectify people all the time. Sometimes it's fun to do so. Sometimes it's fun to get drunk with someone, maybe you just met them, maybe it's your SO, whatever, and proceed to bang each other like objects. No one has a problem with this.

Then why use it at all? It sounds entirely meaningless if it can not be a bad thing, even though it is used to shame sometimes. That's not a very accurate term if it can be bad and good for the same exact reason depending on how the user feels about that person. If it is only used to shame men for having sexual desires for women, and you can admit there's nothing wrong with it too, then clearly it's just a shaming tactic to put down men women don't find attractive. Am I wrong? If so, how so?

When you walk down the street and see people, you see them as objects. You don't know them yet. Practically everyone is seen as an object first before they are humanized by interacting with them.

You're insane. When I walk down the street, and I see people, I see PEOPLE. I don't know them yet, but that doesn't make them not people at any point. You are the one who objectifies if this is your logic. You're the one who can't view people as people without knowing them. I can. I recognize everyone is alive and has shit going on outside of my reality. That's not a shocker to me.

We could talk about subject-object relationships and make comparisons using art theory, but we won't.

I gotta be honest, I think your education has not served you very well. I'm not entirely enthused about having that conversation anymore than you are based on the logic you have provided me with so far.

Anyway, the part where objectification becomes something that people don't like is when people become incapable of seeing other people as individuals/humans with their own agency and subjectivity. Or when people willingly choose to view other people as objects.

Like yourself? What the fuck. I can honestly say there has never been a point in my life where I wasn't able to tell people were people and not objects. Therefore I have to conclude any time a Femnist claims I am objectifying her, she's just being a bitch.

So, when people quote things from TRP saying things like "wimin suck, they are just fuck holes amirite guys?" people have a problem with it because they are willingly choosing to view people as objects and deny them agency.

Just because feminists and feminist-minded women typically don't have a whole lot of value as people and are more accurately described by their usefulness as a series of fuckholes, that doesn't mean they aren't people. It just means they're really low value and the only thing they have to offer that most men would still want is three holes and some tits. Does this mean all women are shitty people who aren't worth a whole lot? No. There are certainly women who don't identify as feminists or think like feminists that totally have value to them that makes them worth more than just their 3 fuckholes.

"Objectification" isn't some term that feminists use to keep us men down -- I'm sure women have objectified you, even. Probably a lot. And it's pretty much guaranteed that you will be in the future. Picking and choosing when and how you do it is what is important.

Why are you hiding behind that word when it's so clearly not necessary? You can just come out and say that objectification is just a shaming word that is interchangeable with wanting some fuckholes to see some action.

[–]ROOTderp4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You're insane. When I walk down the street, and I see people, I see PEOPLE. I don't know them yet, but that doesn't make them not people at any point. You are the one who objectifies if this is your logic. You're the one who can't view people as people without knowing them. I can. I recognize everyone is alive and has shit going on outside of my reality. That's not a shocker to me.

I don't think we can have a conversation about, for example, Heidegger's notion of beings surrounding Dasein or Dasein as subject in a subject-object framework if you aren't familiar with some basic ideas in art theory in regards to how the viewer (subject) views and interacts with art (object).

Let's go back.

You know how when someone says something is "subjective" -- ie, "Your opinion is subjective" -- they mean to say that it is dependent on and born of your particular perspective? And how, when someone says, "X (science, for example) is objective, you can't disprove my troofs," they mean to say that it is something that lies outside of your particular perspective? Or when something is an object, it is not you -- rather, it is something that outside of you?

Well, what I'm trying to demonstrate is how everything outside of you (the subject) is viewed as an object -- exactly because it is viewed as not being you. Everyone views the world as a subject and two easy ways to know this is:

empathy
we can communicate with people

so even if someone couldn't tell someone else that they were a conscious person with feelings, emotions, viewing the world subjectively, etc, we can still know that they experience the world in the same way as oneself because we can feel empathy. So, people are viewed as objects because they are outside of us and we also know that they are people. It's not a mutually exclusive thing.

This is in a structure that sets up a subject-object dichotomy, which has been prevalent for a while and still is. However, a lot of post-modern artists and theorists have deconstructed this framework. My personal favorite is Samuel Beckett, who does so by focusing on how this dichotomy is constructed discursively (with pronouns, for example: "I", "you", "they", "me", etc).

A quick (and hilarious) exercise you could do is to ask yourself: Is a rock conscious? Can a rock feel pain? You would probably answer in the negative, to which someone could ask, "How do you know?" The rock can't tell you and has a different biology than you, but in a functional model of consciousness it wouldn't be entirely impossible for a rock to experience a range of mental states. You might not have empathy for it because it looks nothing like you. It doesn't communicate pain in the same way you do (what this means is, jumping up and down and grabbing your toe when you stub it is a learned behavior that communicates that you are experiencing pain -- it serves no real function). Without these means of knowing, how else could you know? I hope you understand these questions are rhetorical.

TL; DR -- I think you are completely misunderstanding me and I'm not saying objectification is bad.

[–]MsLilithNon-Red Pill7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

A woman who is a gold digger, who is only with a guy for his money, is objectifying him.

This is good. I'm glad you realize this.

A man who just sees a woman as a fuck toy, who has no concern or caring for her as a person is objectifying her.

So why are nice guys demonized? They don't even bring up sex, but feminists claim those guys are objectifying them.

Both are degrading the inherent humanity of the person they are with by not viewing them as anything more than a means to an end.

By that logic then, no relationship is not without objectification of some king. It's just as easy to say that a woman objectifies a man who makes her feel tingles. It's just as easy to say a woman objectifies men she is not attracted to because she only wants them to do things for her. Objectification is just a meaningless shame-inducing qualifier when describing desires expressed by others that you don't like. You can just say what that person wants is objectification because what they want is a means to an end, the means being whatever they want, and the end being the desired outcome of attaining said want.

Wanting to fuck a chick, does not mean you are objectifying her. Deciding that her ability as a fuck toy is more important than anything else about her is.

What if she's really amazing at being a fucktoy and loves being treated as such? Is it still objectification if she's getting pleasure from being treated and regarded as such? Isn't she objectifying the man for welcoming this treatment? Isn't it just as easy to say she feels entitled to being treated as nothing more than a series of fuckholes?

I'm just saying, if that's her greatest quality, then why lie about it? It doesn't mean she's not a human being with thoughts and feelings, and if she gets off from it, and we're both enjoying ourselves, where's the harm? Why can't it just be called sex between two consenting adults? Why do you need to attach something negative and sinister to the act when clearly the two who are enjoying it don't see it that way?

Who is anyone to claim to know they are being objectified when others express sexual interest in them above any of their other qualities? Why can't that just be called sexual desire that may or may not be mutual?

Same as thinking it's sweet for my bf to take me to dinner doesn't make me a gold digger, but staying with a man I don't care for just to get at his money would make me a gold digger.

Would you allow him to fuck you if he didn't take you out to dinner? Would it be objectification if he wanted sex before he would consider paying for your meal?

[–]SkrattGoddess4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I never see those type of dudes talking to the nerd girl sitting in the back, it's always the perfect maidens, which are going for the perfect princes. I mean, face it, they're doing all that to get the box just like eeeeveryone else. XD

Yes, yes they are ignoring the quiet nerd girl who is fat or unattractive in other ways because she doesn't do anything to take care of her looks or body. Nice Guys come in all different forms of physical attractiveness, but generally are not that physically appealing. They are attracted to attractive women, and they're doing what they do because they're abiding by the politically correct rules of dating that is forced on them. They are forced to be total mangina whiteknights. They don't know they're just being tools.

Do they want sex? You bet your ass they do, Skratt. But they aint being assholes about it. They don't want just sex. They want relationships with attractive women, and they are being told they are entitled when they get upset that the lie they have been sold isn't working out for them, and rightly so. They don't understand why when they behave as they are told to behave that it does not result in women ever reciprocating those feelings of interest. Nobody tells them, and women exploit the fuck out of them.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

And neither do they! That's the problem.

I already addressed this. There's definitely nice guys who are complete morons about being presentable. That doesn't explain the ones who do take care of themselves but couldn't get a date to save their lives.

Why get mad at attractive women for liking the (asshole) attractive men (because attractive men tend to be arrogant) when you're doing the exact same thing?

You're attempting to say attractive men are assholes. That's not always the case, it's the assholish nature women are attracted to. Looks are important as well, but without the asshole, they aren't quite as enthused.

And it's the women they TALK to exploiting them, because when men are nice to me I reciprocate it, but if miss stick-up-her-ass who gets complimented every day gets approached by you, what makes you more special than the other 1000 ass kissers?

I see you're stuck in the nice girl paradigm. Have you ever gone to RPW?

Y'all need to learn some sense.

You seem to be contradicting yourself compared to when you post to me in private messages.

[–]SkrattGoddess0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkrattGoddess1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skratt1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYF0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Skratt1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

A woman can be a person and a series of fuckholes I wanna stick my dick in at the same time.

I think it's how you have an innate desire to want to fuck holes.

Women have a very visceral reaction to being regarded as a "series of fuckholes." As much as it makes you feel like a demon, it sounds degrading as fuck to us. And people don't have to like your desire. Get over it. Just as you want us to get over it.

Blame nature.

SorryNotSorry

RedPill4LYF · 2014-12-05T05:26:35+00:00

"Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an...

Also imagine if you were in jail and men were constantly looking to "fuck your holes." It's creepy and unnerving and makes you feel hella vulnerable. That's the only parallel I can think of at the moment.

Society is unnerved by "penetration." DEAL WITH IT.

I mean look how you guys regard "sluts." I've seen TRPers have a virtual hissy fit imagining the amount of times a woman has been fucked by someone other than them. And hell, sometimes she's trash if she lets him fuck her.

Same shit.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Women have a very visceral reaction to being regarded as a "series of fuckholes."

Is this the same visceral reaction men have to realizing women view them as nothing more than ATM and validation machines?

How about you be honest with yourself and actually argue the point that men can see women as people while also finding them sexually desirable. If you want to get hung up on the wording, there's my nicer way of putting it. Argue that.

Also imagine if you were in jail and men were constantly looking to "fuck your holes." It's creepy and unnerving and makes you feel hella vulnerable. That's the only parallel I can think of at the moment.

Gay men want me so bad and have routinely offered to perform very lewd acts with me without me indicating any interest whatsoever. Know what my reaction is? Other than the ego boost of knowing even other men want me, IDGAF.

I know my body is sexy. Of course people wanna do stuff to it, men and women both. I don't find it creepy or unnerving to be desired because I know it's a natural part of human nature to want to fuck people you're attracted to.

[–]GridReXXit be like that11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I know my body is sexy. Of course people wanna do stuff to it, men and women both. I don't find it creepy or unnerving to be desired because I know it's a natural part of human nature to want to fuck people you're attracted to.

Most women do. Perhaps it's because men love sex or all men love sex, who knows.

But I can't think of a woman who doesn't have a visceral reaction to being regarded to as a "series of fuckholes."

You can't relate because you're not a woman.

I won't deny you want to fuck holes and quite frankly me don't care, but you can't control how others view your desire.

Tough titty breh.

Also you ignored my "slut" analogy. I personally think the same reasoning for you/men having a visceral reaction to "sluts" is the same reasoning for why women/men have a visceral reaction to being seen as "fucked."

I mean seriously... I can't believe we're arguing this.

It's a fucking known profane phrase to "be fucked" or "fucked in the ass."

No positive connotation.

Being the hole that is fucked isn't rewarded in society and so... there it is.

So you wanting to "fuck us in our holes" illicits an ambivalent response from us. And I don't know why you're shocked that it isn't "joy."

In fact if it were, most of TRP men would be calling her a slut for liking/responding/acting on the sexual attention.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Most women do.

Then you are arguing that most women don't desire sex at all ever. If you try to turn around and say that there are exceptions that allow for women to desire sex, then you are contradicting yourself because it means they understand and are okay with the fact that their bodies are sexually desirable, or you're being a hypocrite, because the sex they want would be with someone they find attractive themselves, which means they are objectifying the men they would have sex with.

In either case, women are wrong to claim there is a problem with the fact that men find them sexually desirable, because they either hate sex or are hypocritical liars.

But I can't think of a woman who doesn't have a visceral reaction to being regarded to as a "series of fuckholes."

What about sluts?

You can't relate because you're not a woman.

Really? I've heard many a blue piller argue that sexual attraction for women works pretty much exactly the same way as it does with men. Why does that argument go out the window when I bring up the word objectification?

I won't deny you want to fuck holes and quite frankly me don't care, but you can't control how others view your desire.

So why defend the word objectification, you hypocrite?

Tough titty breh.

This is not a logical argument.

Also you ignored my "slut" analogy. I personally think the same reasoning for you/men having a visceral reaction to "sluts" is the same reasoning for why women/men have a visceral reaction to being seen as "fucked."

Okay, get ready for that.

I mean look how you guys regard "sluts." I've seen TRPers have a virtual hissy fit imagining the amount of times a woman has been fucked by someone other than them. And hell, sometimes she's trash if she lets him fuck her.

Women become less and less desirable to men as far as long term commitments are involved when they know she has a very high number of past sexual partners. If there was any chance she was going to be loyal to him at all, knowing there is a list of past cocks she's ridden doesn't do anything to bolster a man's confidence. Also, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Nobody would want to pay full price for a used car with a lot of mileage on it.

Sluts are really only good for sex then. You deal with that.

I mean seriously... I can't believe we're arguing this.

The fact that it's not wrong for a man to desire a woman's body? The fact that it's natural, and how Feminists would demonize it for selfish reasons? What's hard to believe about this being an argument?

It's a fucking known profane phrase to "be fucked" or "fucked in the ass."

Uh, what? What does that have to do with anything?

No positive connotation.

I wanna put my penis inside a vagina, and I don't want anyone to think I'm a monster who is just using a woman as a fuck toy for having that desire.

Being the hole that is fucked isn't rewarded in society and so... there it is.

Please elaborate on this point.

So you wanting to "fuck us in our holes" illicits an ambivalent response from us. And I don't know why you're shocked that it isn't "joy."

It is for women who don't have control issues.

In fact if it were, most of TRP men would be calling her a slut for liking/responding/acting on the sexual attention.

No, that's not what makes a woman a slut. A slut is a woman who has no loyalty and sleeps around with men riding the CC, then thinks she deserves a beta bux when she hits the wall.

-edit- Ad homs removed for compliance.

[–]GridReXXit be like that5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Then you are arguing that most women don't desire sex at all ever.

Nope. I clearly say they are ambivalent regarding it. Think about it. On one hand "doggy style" is likely pleasurable for her, and the other hand, it's sort of kind of degrading. You can hamster away from that if you like.

So yes. Women are allowed to have conflicting feelings about it. Look how much "bottoms" are disparged in the gay community for the same reason. Everyone wants to fuck one, but no one wants to be one or admit they like it.

What about sluts, dumb dumb?

Ahhh, the hard on you're giving me by being a cunt is fantastic. Yes, yes sluts. TRP loves dem some sluts. Trash them and fuck them and then trash them some more.

Really? I've heard many a blue piller argue that sexual attraction for women works pretty much exactly the same way as it does with men. Why does that argument go out the window when I bring up the word objectification?

Sexual attraction is simple. I have to be attracted to you to want to fuck you. Samesies for men and women.

Libido/sex drive... different for men and women.

How men and women experience sex... very different.

The payoffs for sex between men and women... very different.

So why defend the word objectification, you hypocrite?

I'm not defending, I'm explaining it homie. I get your side, and I'm explaining the other side. You clearly do not understand the other side. It hurts your brain and shit.

It's a fucking known profane phrase to "be fucked" or "fucked in the ass."

Uh, what? What does that have to do with anything?

Everything?

The fact that "being fucked" is looked upon negatively by society, including men, is PART OF THE REASON MALE DESIRE IS DEMONIZED. You/men demonized your own damn penis.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Nope. I clearly say they are ambivalent regarding it. Think about it. On one hand "doggy style" is likely pleasurable for her, and the other hand, it's sort of kind of degrading. You can hamster away from that if you like.

Then all you're proving is that a woman is capable of enjoying "degrading" acts. What's wrong with objectification again?

So yes. Women are allowed to have conflicting feelings about it. Look how much "bottoms" are disparged in the gay community for the same reason. Everyone wants to fuck one, but no one wants to be one or admit they like it.

Then why is male sexuality demonized in the first place if women can't give a solid answer about whether or not they like being seen in a sexual light? Men are afforded no such privilege as to control what sexual desires are permissive and that which are not. This doublestandard proves the sexes are unequal in a very fundamental way, showing that it is men who are really in need of support, not women.

Look how much "bottoms" are disparged in the gay community for the same reason. Everyone wants to fuck one, but no one wants to be one or admit they like it.

Why do you disparage "bottoms" in the gay community? Why do you disparage "bottoms" in the straight community by extension? I don't. IDGAF who wants to be bottom or top. What I GAF about is when others tell me I'm a monster for liking one over the other. Why do you disparage men who are "tops" in the straight community? Why do you think men wouldn't enjoy sexually aggressive women who wanted to be tops if such were the norm? Currently, women are passive about their sexual interests unless a man performs the catch-22 action of approaching and expressing the desire to fuck them.

By the logic you have provided me, it would appear that you are bigoted, whereas I am not.

Ahhh, the hard on you're giving me by being a cunt is fantastic. Yes, yes sluts. TRP loves dem some sluts. Trash them and fuck them and then trash them some more.

If you're a slut with a low partner count, I wanna date you. If you're a slut who has ridden the CC all the way into your 30s without settling down, you're pretty much entirely used up and men generally aren't going to want you. Are there exceptions? Sure. Is it an exception for me personally? No. Other red pillers seem to share the same view. Capiche?

Now answer my question directly and honestly, or I'll be forced to continue believing I'm correct, and you wouldn't want that, now would you?

Sexual attraction is simple. I have to be attracted to you to want to fuck you. Samesies for men and women.

Libido/sex drive... different for men and women.

How men and women experience sex... very different dumb dumb.

The payoffs for sex between men and women... very different dumb dumb.

Well gosh. Why don't you and that hard on of yours spank out an answer that actually elaborates on all this in detail so I will be compelled to change my view regarding objectification?

I'm not defending, I'm explaining it homie. I get your side, and I'm explaining the other side. You clearly do not understand the other side. It hurts your brain and shit.

Not really. I feel no pain at all right now. Your side seems to consist of, well, no logical reasoning I should change my opinion at all yet. It's mostly all rooted in shaming me for having the desire to fuck women. Can you show me how I'm wrong? I'm open to changing my opinion if you can provide me with compelling reasoning to do so. I think women are people by the way. I have preferences for who I am sexually attracted to and everything.

You really did 100% contradict yourself by the way. I mean, I really got you. There's just no way to deny it. You walked right into it. Prove me wrong?

Everything?

So it's okay to objectify and wanna stick my dick in all your holes as long as I'm nice about it? What's the correct way to express my interest in you sucking on my meat stick until hot ropes of semen gush down the back of your throat without it being objectification? Do I need to turn my head to the side and think of the Queen or something? What's the magic word that makes it alright?

The fact that "being fucked" is looked upon negatively by society, including men, is PART OF THE REASON MALE DESIRE IS DEMONIZED. You fucking idiot. You/men demonized your own damn penis.

Being fucked is looked upon negatively by society only if you're an unfaithful whore. So why are you demonizing male sexuality when most men will tell you they would be happy with one woman who wants to fuck them for the rest of their lives? Why demonize guys who are nice and do everything to show you they want relationships before they will even talk about their desire for sex? They aren't doing it just because they want sex, they want a relationship, but you seem turned off. I wonder if this is where that ambivalent response to being degraded in a sexual act has anything to do with that logic.

It's almost as if you enjoy being treated like a dirty whore bottom slut, but you're too scared to admit it. It's okay if you are. I think that's fine. There's nothing wrong with being submissive if that's what you like. Not my cup of tea. I tried a few times. I like being a top better.

You fucking idiot. You/men demonized your own damn penis.

How do we do that? Do you not see how your arguments are what demonizes my penis? My penis doesn't want to hurt you. It wants to get up inside that cooter and make your love juices flow down your thighs while you moan like a little bitch.

[–]GridReXXit be like that11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Sigh...

You refuse to see the other side. I honestly can't help you anymore.

As I said, I get it. You want to get up inside of me and make me moan something something little bitch. Yay me.

I get it.

You're sad male desire is demonized.

And I'm sad female sexuality is confined and that I can't fuck more than 1 guy without being considered "loose/slut/lady of the night."

We all got problems dude.

I'm saying the fact that female/feminine sexuality/ "the one being fucked" has been disparaged throughout history, has thus affected how "male desire" is viewed.

What aren't you getting?

If women are looked at as pure and holy and saintly or whatever AND/OR if people who "get fucked" are looked upon as lesser or worthless or easily discarded, etc...

It henceforth makes sense that when a penis enters said hole, it's suddenly magically "defiled" (sluts...not worthy for marriage) or is seen as a "punishment" (rape/power play when men fuck other men or women).

This then affects how the same controllers of female sexuality, view the owners of a penis.

The owner of the penis becomes the "defiler" in their mind. Or the bringer of punishment. Or the "sullier"/because "females succumbing to sex is bad."

Seriously men are the main ones grossed out by a woman whose had more than his dick. Or grossed out at the thought of a dick entering themselves.

Honestly just read Foucault's book on sexuality or any sociological text dealing with sex throughout history.

I'm not sure what you aren't comprehending.

Us humans have a sordid history when it comes to female and male sexuality. Some of it societal... a lot of biological. Most of it fucked up.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sigh...

You refuse to see the other side. I honestly can't help you anymore.

You can huff and puff, and talk about how you made an honest effort to change my mind, but at no point have you said anything remotely logical that I can really sink my teeth into and contemplate. It's all hocus pocus shut-the-fuck-upery with you so far. I need a solid answer that says, "Hey, you're wrong about objectification because [articulate rational answer that compels you to realize you are mistaken in your belief and here's why], and that's why you should not see objectification as a male shaming tactic."

As I said, I get it. You want to get up inside of me and make me moan something something little bitch. Yay me.

Ikr, despite your protestations that it's degrading, I know you love, baby.

I get it.

Slow down. I don't put out that easy. Are you hot?

You're sad male desire is demonized.

Please elaborate. Also, I think you meant "your" not "you're", but now I'm just being overly pedantic.

And I'm sad female sexuality is confined and that I can't fuck more than 1 guy without being considered "loose/slut/lady of the night."

Oh you certainly can do this depending on who you get with, and you won't be considered a slut. My rule is that she can't have fucked more than 5 people in the past if she wants anything long term. She can get laid by those 5 guys inside the respective relationships as much as she wants, but if she crosses that line, she's just riding the ride in my mind. She aint really serious about finding a good man to settle down with yet, and that's just slutty in my opinion.

Would I give a slut a chance at an LTR? If she didn't fuck too many more people than that, and she had a great personality, and she wasn't too old, and you know, I was feeling it, and I was making a personal judgement call with my gut cause I felt like she might be worth it, yeah I'd probably give her a shot.

It's really about how a woman uses her sexuality that makes me consider her a slut. If she's got the right attitude, and her actions, words, and the people she surrounds herself match all that, then I'm going to be way more inclined to treat her with much more respect from the start, whereas if she's clearly got slut face, ONS at best, but I wouldn't be trying to get with her. She'd have to work for it.

We all got problems dude.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. How does this challenge my view about objectification though? Where is this top notch logic you keep alluding to having? You say I'm not willing to see the other side, but this is too nebulous for me to go, "Oh okay, you're right."

I'm saying the fact that female/feminine sexuality/ "the one being fucked" has been disparaged throughout history, has thus affected how "male desire" is viewed.

Why don't you stop acting like a victim, and stop treating me like I'm a slave master from the past? Hm? Innit that fair? I definitely didn't grow up thinking I could just impose my will on any woman. I was a very kind young boy. Women walked all over me as a result. Sorry if I'm not exactly a nice guy today, but I have problems to deal with too, so I don't dick around when it comes to women anymore. You either want me or you don't, and if you don't, next. That's all there is to it.

Now, how is objectification wrong?

What aren't you getting?

I'm too lazy to figure out what context you're talking about since you're too lazy to quote what you're responding to, too. Is this more accountability dodging? You're just gonna claim my responses don't make sense? You don't know what I'm talking about anymore? Is that it? You're gonna play dumb with me? You don't have an answer that challenges my view on objectification?

If women are looked at as pure and holy and saintly or whatever AND/OR if people who "get fucked" are looked upon as lesser or worthless or easily discarded, etc... It henceforth makes sense that when a penis enters said hole, it's suddenly magically "defiled" (sluts...not worthy for marriage) or is seen as a "punishment" (rape/power play when men fuck other men or women).

We've already established the difference between the two. If you're a faithful gal who sticks with her partner, and you don't cheat, and you don't ride the CC, you can do whatever fucked up sexual acts you like to your hearts content with your SO, and I won't think any less of you for it.

Do that with like a dozen guys, and I think you're a total slut who isn't worth committing to. It's a spectrum of desirability with variables such as your age, partner count, and what kind of attitude you have toward relationships. Okay? Remember that this time, because it's not relevant. You're just derailing.

This then affects how the same controllers of female sexuality, view the owners of a penis.

Elaborate on this, please. This might be worth hearing about actually, even if it's not relevant to the original point of this thread. I still wanna know more because I'm curious.

The owner of the penis becomes the "defiler" in their mind. Or the bringer of punishment. Or the "sullier"/because "females succumbing to sex is bad."

So you view men as monsters for having penises even after it is established that you're not viewed as trash by men if you are loyal to SOs and don't sleep around? Females succumbing to sex outside of committed relationships is what's bad, unless you have no intention of marrying, then the way I see it you're more than welcome to be as slutty as you want. You know? I can't control what you do with your body, but I can control what I would want to do with it, and it wouldn't be much in that case.

So don't you think that's kind of a fucked up worldview to have to think of men as punishing you just because you want to have sex with them? How can you ever claim to love a man if this is really how you see it?

Seriously men are the main ones grossed out by a woman whose had more than his dick. Or grossed out at the thought of a dick entering themselves.

There is nothing impressive about a woman who has taken a lot of dick in her time. It's seen as gross because you're not likely to stay committed to any man if you have a history of sucking and fucking with reckless abandon. There's also the matter that if you do have that kind of history, but the man you claim to want to commit to doesn't turn you on nearly as much as the men before him, he's always going to know you simply settled for him because you couldn't do better anymore. So, you have this female privilege of all men basically wanting to fuck you, if you're not wise with who you give yourself to, then it's your own fault when men being to reject your company. If you want to live that kind of life, then don't expect men to ever want to commit to you fully, at least not any man of high value anyway.

Men on the other hand, fuck man, women act like we're dirt just because we got dicks. So we gotta do a hell of a lot more work just to get laid. That's why if a man has a high partner count, he's seen more as a stud than a slut. If you wanna pretend like you're turned off by his partner count (assuming it's high like a slut's) you're more than welcome to, but that's clearly not how it works in my experience.

I'm not grossed out by the thought of a dick entering me, I just know it doesn't turn me on. The thought of my dick penetrating all of your holes makes it swell though. If I could be attracted to men, I would just be gay or bisexual.

Honestly just read Foucault's book on sexuality or any sociological text dealing with sex throughout history.

Okay, but how does this challenge my view about objectification?

Us humans have a sordid history when it comes to female and male sexuality. Some of it societal... a lot of biological. Most of it fucked up.

Agreed.

[–]GridReXXit be like that6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you're going to be pedantic be right.

That's right, attack that low hanging fruit.

I stated many responses ago that men and women can objectify and still view people as people.

Which then means that objectification is just a shame tactic. It's a shame-inducing qualifier when applied to male sexuality. If men thought women were objects, they wouldn't give a single fuck about TRP. They would be rapists.

I spent the last waste of my time explaining why men appear to be demonized for their desire. You don't seem to understand why it happens so I explained in painstaking detail.

You did? Where?

You refuse to accept how history has played out. Instead you call it hocus Pocus.

I don't give a shit about the history of how people fucked in the dark ages. That is the most insane argument I've gotten so far. All it is is derailing from the original point of the post. What I give a shit about getting my dick wet right now in the modern era, and if there's a feminist approved way of doing that, I wanna know, because this is not the distant past. You did not live in the distant past. You're not a slave victim of the middle ages. You are privileged female living in current times, deal with that, and tell me how objectification is anything but a shaming tactic to attack male sexuality.

[–]GridReXX2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]winndixiedirty -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I think it's how you have an innate desire to want to fuck holes.

Do you think that is wrong?

Society is unnerved by "penetration." DEAL WITH IT. Blame nature.

Fair enough. Men are visual creatures. I will never stop being visually attracted to women, however, I will refrain from saying things to women that gets me a bad outcome. YOU DEAL WITH IT.

inb4 being blamed for condoning rape and sexual harassment, I never said I did. Women don't get raped by objectifying men. Women get raped by rapists.

Men have a very visceral reaction when a woman regards them as losers. It sounds as degrading as fuck to us. And people don't have to like your judgment. I feel angry and like crying at the same time. And hell, sometimes he's a loser if he goes up and says hi.

I'm sure you know how much damage one word can do.

Can I shame you so you stop calling me a loser? No, you won't, and as a man, I deal with it.

Same shit. Another day.

Sex was never made equal for both genders.

EDIT: You either deal with and live with the world and be happy. Or keep complaining about it. Or find someone to make their world better and they will yours.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]winndixiedirty -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]winndixiedirty 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

And if you treat her as purely a series of fuckholes you stick your dick in, then you are objectifying her. If you treat them as a person and want to have sex with them, then you are not.

So your options are, sex with personhood = good, sex without = bad. Not once mentioning what the hell "treat them like a person" means.

So, yes, your argument is garbage. Let's move on.

You should utilize some empathy for others and see whether your actions may be grossly misplaced.

That's got to be a new level of nonsense from you. What does that even mean? You certainly threw some words together there.

Ok, I just went through the checkout line at the grocery store, and saw the cover of a magazine. Chick on the front is hot. I like her boobs. Didn't catch her name.

What's my anti-misogyny checklist to make sure I'm following the feminist anti-objectification code?

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Instead of chasing your own sexual desires/wishes with no regard for the feelings of the other person (hence treating her as an object which has no wishes/feelings/desires), you treat her as a human being that is as complicated as yourself.

If you believe that pickup, which is going out, attracting a woman, and bringing her back to have sex is somehow denying that the woman wants to have sex, you've got yourself a nice straw man version of objectification.

Basically, what you're describing is rape. Which isn't really at argument here. If I fuck a woman who wants to fuck me, then it is clear her feelings were taken into account. Even if it's strictly a sexual fling or one-night stand.

It means you think about the other person's feelings/desires/wishes before you voice whatever you feel like out of sexual desire.

Ok, so if I never voice anything to them good or bad, then no objectification has taken place? Like, admiring women in passing at the mall?

[–]steelpuppy-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArinlyPilsner5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountDrama 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Bottom line: everyone objectifies each other in some way shape or form and to a certain degree. The problem is the attitude behind it and the lack of respect of boundaries. I objectify others sometimes and so does my SO. Hell, we gave a game that revolves around objectifying others. We'll be walking around the downtown area and when we see a good looking guy/girl we'll immediately ask each other if we would tap that. But we don't go up to said attractive person and step all over their boundaries as well as shit on their right to a peaceful existence. We don't feel entitled to said person's attention for being attractive.

Sorry ladies. Sorry you have the burden of having to put up with men wanting to lick and suck you all over your supple fun bags. Sorry we wanna fondle your bikini bridges pretty much all the time. Sorry about butt stuff, too. Sorry. Not really.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not entitled to be a dick to others.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Bottom line: everyone objectifies each other in some way shape or form and to a certain degree.

Then the word is entirely meaningless and should not be used as a weapon to shame anyone for finding others sexually desirable.

The problem is the attitude behind it and the lack of respect of boundaries.

If attitude is the real issue, then let's address that specifically, instead of shoehorning male sexuality into it. So what attitude is the problem?

I objectify others sometimes and so does my SO. Hell, we gave a game that revolves around objectifying others. We'll be walking around the downtown area and when we see a good looking guy/girl we'll immediately ask each other if we would tap that.

So you agree objectification is really just sexual desire for another. Thank you for proving my point.

But we don't go up to said attractive person and step all over their boundaries as well as shit on their right to a peaceful existence. We don't feel entitled to said person's attention for being attractive.

So how did you two meet? How do you have sex ever if neither of you has ever felt entitled to each other's attention in some capacity? Do you deny that you find each other attractive and just accidentally bump uglies in a way that both of you refuse to acknowledge is hot and fun during, but can reflect back on it and see that it was so? Your logic makes no sense to me.

Did you think you and your SO deserved a peaceful existence where neither of you could approach each other for fear of objectifying the other? You're an anomaly then. Explain yourself, magical being beyond human comprehension.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not entitled to be a dick to others.

Why do you see it as being a dick when women without any issues regarding control love and welcome that kind of dirty sexual talk? Could it just be that the sexual desires others have of you is really a personal level problem you need to get over because you really have no control over it?

[–]CountDrama 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Then the word is entirely meaningless and should not be used as a weapon to shame anyone for finding others sexually desirable.

Who is this boogeyman that goes around shaming people?

So what attitude is the problem?

Entitlement.

So you agree objectification is really just sexual desire for another.

Objectification is simply viewing someone as an object. It's not sex exclusive.

So how did you two meet?

Through mutual friends.

How do you have sex ever if neither of you has ever felt entitled to each other's attention in some capacity?

Because sex and attention are given, not taken. Therefore, no need to feel entitled.

Did you think you and your SO deserved a peaceful existence where neither of you could approach each other for fear of objectifying the other?

That's not how relationships work.

Explain yourself, magical being beyond human comprehension.

Cute.

Why do you see it as being a dick when women without any issues regarding control love and welcome that kind of dirty sexual talk?

Good for them dude, more power to them. That's still not an excuse to go around disrespecting others (unless, of course, they consent to this). You are not entitled to be a dick to others, no matter how many women you've ran into that just so happen to have a positive reaction to this.

Could it just be that the sexual desires others have of you is really a personal level problem you need to get over because you really have no control over it?

No, I just think people should respect each other's personal boundaries.

[–]boscoistRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountDrama 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]boscoistRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CountDrama 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Who is this boogeyman that goes around shaming people?

SJWs. TRP just tells the truth. SJWs would have you believe we're boogeymen though. Hi, I'm just a guy who likes sex with women and I'm not afraid to admit it. I don't consider it objectification to enjoy the female form. I see it as a healthy desire that shouldn't be demonized. I'd like to be nice to an attractive woman who wants to be nice back to me, and we can fuck like jackrabbits in a relationship where we both pull our own weight working together for a successful happy future together.

Is that so wrong?

Entitlement.

Entitlement is another one of those words that doesn't make any sense when you break it down. It can be just as easily said that women feel entitled not to be seen as sexual creatures by men they don't find attractive. If entitlement is a bad attitude to have, then neither party is right, and we should all cease ever desiring sex and let the human race go extinct by your logic.

Objectification is simply viewing someone as an object. It's not sex exclusive.

It's impossible to view a woman as an object. We're always cognizant of the fact that women are living breathing human beings, even when we desire sex from them. If they weren't living breathing human beings with thoughts, feelings, desires, and all that other shit that is indicative of humanity, we men would simply fuck any hole we could find.

I reject your answer as clearly false.

Through mutual friends.

Did you feel entitled to each other's attention at any point? Did you feel entitled to the attention of your mutual friends who felt entitled to introduce your SO who you express entitlement of their loyalty to you by sheer virtue of the fact that they are your SO?

Seems like you're making a lot of hypocritical mistakes if you're judging men for being entitled to attention from women in any capacity.

Because sex and attention are given, not taken. Therefore, no need to feel entitled.

But what if I view my sex as something to be given to the woman? Does that mean I feel entitled to give my attention to the woman? Does that mean you feel entitled to give sex and attention to your SO whom you feel entitled to the loyalty of by sheer virtue of the fact that you call them your SO? Should we just stop using the word entitlement since it can be so easily applied to every action a person takes? Should we just realize that the word entitlement is really another shaming word designed to control male sexuality?

Is male sexuality entitlement in and of itself? Is female sexuality entitlement in and of itself? When does this word start making sense other than that it is a negative qualifier to be applied to any situation you don't like others expressing interest in?

That's not how relationships work.

I'm glad you agree. Whew. So how do relationships work? I really wanna avoid this entitlement and objectification thing, cause I don't wanna be a bad guy. I like being a good man, and I also like sex, so I definitely wanna work on that if I have a problem. You know? I just wanna know how to get my dick wet from pussy without you wanting me to feel guilty about it.

Cute.

So cute is the magic word then? I just have to call everything you do cute like you're a bratty little sister, and you'll just hop on my cock and we can totally not be objectifying each other while we do the nasty?

Okay, testing that out now. "You're cute." Am I doing it right? Is your pussy wet yet?

Good for them dude, more power to them. That's still not an excuse to go around disrespecting others (unless, of course, they consent to this). You are not entitled to be a dick to others, no matter how many women you've ran into that just so happen to have a positive reaction to this.

Why do you call it disrespecting others when this is the exact behavior that many women enjoy greatly without inhibition? If you tell me to stop, then those women will never get to enjoy my cock degrading their filthy love holes. How will I ever get around this paradoxical self-defeating logic if I don't conclude that you're wrong? Do you have an answer that can satisfy both of us?

What is being a dick anyway? Where is the line? I really wanna know. Where is the line that allows me to get my dick wet, but doesn't make me a dick either. I want the Feminist approved sexual strategy that allows me to be a straight heterosexual male "top". Give me that answer.

No, I just think people should respect each other's personal boundaries.

In what capacity though? TRP doesn't tell anyone to rape women. Are we not respecting personal boundaries when we aren't making women do anything they don't wanna do? Where's the problem?

[–]CountDrama 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

TRP just tells the truth.

They don't.

I'm just a guy who likes sex with women and I'm not afraid to admit it.

Welcome to the club.

Is that so wrong?

I never stated otherwise.

It's impossible to view a woman as an object.

Wait your backtracking here. First you say that you can objectify women and see them as people simultaneaously (which agree with) now you're saying that you can't objectify women in the first place. You are all over the place.

If they weren't living breathing human beings with thoughts, feelings, desires, and all that other shit that is indicative of humanity, we men would simply fuck any hole we could find.

You are rambling.

I reject your answer as clearly false.

Just because you wish it, doesn't make it so.

Did you feel entitled to each other's attention at any point?

No, that's how mutual attraction works.

Seems like you're making a lot of hypocritical mistakes if you're judging men for being entitled to attention from women in any capacity.

I'm not and I'm not solely judging men here. Entitlement is pervasive in both genders.

But what if I view my sex as something to be given to the woman?

If she's cool with it, go for it.

So how do relationships work?

Mutual reciprocity. If you (or your SO) feel like you have to take things in your relationship, then it's probably time to bail.

I just wanna know how to get my dick wet from pussy without you wanting me to feel guilty about it.

If you feel guilty it's probably because you are one of those people who feel entitled to others.

I just have to call everything you do cute like you're a bratty little sister, and you'll just hop on my cock and we can totally not be objectifying each other while we do the nasty?

You don't want to go down this path dude. I have no problem raw-dogging your asshole.

Is your pussy wet yet?

I don't have a pussy.

Why do you call it disrespecting others when this is the exact behavior that ~~many women~~ women i have encountered enjoy greatly without inhibition?

FTFY

How will I ever get around this paradoxical self-defeating logic if I don't conclude that you're wrong?

I'm not wrong and you are making a fool out of yourself.

In what capacity though?

When you approach someone, they give you social cues as to whether they are okay with it or not.

TRP doesn't tell anyone to rape women.

That's debatable.

Where's the problem?

Your whole premise is built on the notion that feminists are going around shaming men, and that you should be entitled to be an asshole to others.

Now, your responses to not only me, but to others in this thread, indicate that you are nothing more than a petty troll.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They don't.

Do too.

Welcome to the club.

Are there any benefits?

Wait your backtracking here. First you say that you can objectify women and see them as people simultaneaously (which agree with) now you're saying that you can't objectify women in the first place. You are all over the place.

Bet'cha think you totally got me there, dont'cha? If it's possible to view women as a person and a physical series of fuckholes, then it's not really objectification like I explained.

You are rambling.

That's a good one. So, it's rambling when I'm being logical and totally debunking the idea that objectification is a thing? Prove it.

Just because you wish it, doesn't make it so.

Got anything to back that up?

No, that's how mutual attraction works.

Well since you think you're an authority, explain to me like I'm five how mutual attraction works. Sounds like I'm missing something really fundamental here. This could be it. This could be the answer I need to hear.

I'm not and I'm not solely judging men here. Entitlement is pervasive in both genders.

So then why call it entitlement? Why not just say both genders desire things? Why the negative shame-inducing connotation?

If she's cool with it, go for it.

But what about if she thinks my desire to give her my attention is me being entitled? Isn't that the exact same thing said two different ways?

Mutual reciprocity. If you (or your SO) feel like you have to take things in your relationship, then it's probably time to bail.

Considering TRP teaches men to go for what they want and to next women who are reciprocating to their advances, I don't see what your problem with the sub is. We're literally spitting red pills at each other, but just saying it with different wording now.

If you feel guilty it's probably because you are one of those people who feel entitled to others.

See, there's that shame word again. It doesn't mean anything other than that you should feel bad for having a desire. We established this several times now.

You don't want to go down this path dude. I have no problem raw-dogging your asshole.

Do you have a penis or a vajayjay micro penor+fuckhole?

I don't have a pussy.

Disregard the above. Is your dick hard then?

FTFY

Pretty sure I'm the one living my life, bro. I don't act like a dickhead to women, I'm just confident and don't care if they try to put me down when I hit on them. Either they want me or they don't, and the ones who think I'm good looking tend to like it a lot.

When you approach someone, they give you social cues as to whether they are okay with it or not.

I agree with this. However, there are many women who do this purposely to lead you on so they can extract resources from you. So you gotta be a little more aggressive about getting straight answers in my experience. This is neither here nor there though. How does this challenge my view about objectification?

That's debatable.

Apparently not in this sub.

Your whole premise is built on the notion that feminists are going around shaming men, and that you should be entitled to be an asshole to others.

Are you a feminist? Cause you just ironically proved it in the same breath. I think this is checkmate.

Now, your responses to not only me, but to others in this thread, indicate that you are nothing more than a petty troll.

I'm not a petty troll for wanting a direct answer that compels me to see differently about what I think. More shaming language isn't going to help you in that endeavor.

[–]CountDrama 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Do too

No.

Are there any benefits?

We're unionized.

Bet'cha think you totally got me there, dont'cha?

Yes I do.

So, it's rambling when I'm being logical and totally debunking the idea that objectification is a thing?

If only you were being logical.

Got anything to back that up?

Yes.

Well since you think you're an authority, explain to me like I'm five how mutual attraction works.

Person A likes Person B. Person B likes Person A. BOOM. Mutual attraction.

Why not just say both genders desire things?

There's a difference between "I want that" and "I deserve that."

But what about if she thinks my desire to give her my attention is me being entitled?

Then leave.

I don't see what your problem with the sub is.

It's a cesspool of hatred and bigotry.

We're literally spitting red pills at each other

I'm not saying anything that is exclusive to TRP.

It doesn't mean anything other than that you should feel bad for having a desire.

If you consider every criticism towards you as someone trying to "shame" you, then you will never grow as a person.

Is your dick hard then?

Yes, very.

I don't act like a dickhead to women, I'm just confident and don't care if they try to put me down when I hit on them.

So you purposely step on their boundaries and don't care if they protest? Now I understand your outrage boner.

However, there are many women who do this purposely to lead you on so they can extract resources from you.

Not every woman is out to get you.

Are you a feminist?

Nope.

Cause you just ironically proved it in the same breath.

I'm just an asshole who likes to be an asshole to other assholes.

I think this is checkmate.

Nope, nice try though.

I'm not a petty troll for wanting a direct answer that compels me to see differently about what I think.

I gave you a direct answer. You should feel lucky I'm still entertaining you.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountDrama 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CountDrama2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Red Pill School had a good essay on objectification:

http://puerarchy.com/2013/07/09/only-white-knights-women-and-feminists-objectify-women/

Excerpt:

Let’s talk about agency, the opposite of being an object. This is important. I have agency. Tomorrow I can decide whether to go swimming, or read a book. It’s my choice. I have an active role in my future. Nobody can tell me what I can and cannot do. I am an agent.

Feminists used to be pretty upset at the idea that anybody would objectify women. This was the concept that women have no agency, and instead do only what other people act upon them. If I want a woman in the kitchen cleaning my coffee mug, I put her there and she does it. Well gosh that sounds terrible.

Feminism agrees! Women aren’t objects. They should never be treated as such. So feminism, I have to ask. Why do you keep acting like women are objects and not agents? Feminists keep telling me I’m disgusting, that I’m wrong and evil.. because I trick women into sleeping with me.

But feminists- you were the one who told me women are people and make grown up decisions for themselves! Are you saying that women are incapable of saying no?

I just don’t get it. I’m trying to understand. Why would you deny women agency?

I have never had sex with somebody who didn’t want to have sex with me. I respected their wishes because they are people. They’re people with personalities and agency. But you criticise them saying they are objects- that they have no agency! That they are tricked and manipulated, but have no active role in deciding who to have sex with.

[–]ArinlyPilsner5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfatbrokethewallNon-Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lionhart2800 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Well, first off, feminism didn't invent the concept of objectifying, that is a very old word thats been around for way longer.

Objectifying is when you take a living person or thing and treat it as an object. And no, women aren't the only people/things to get objectified.

Rich couples that buy a puppy and treat it liked a stuffed toy and then abandon it when it isn't cute and cuddly anymore? Objectification.

Women that only date men for their money, aka goldiggers? Objectification.

Parents that have children and then get a nanny to take care of them because they just want children for the sake of having children? Objectification.

Slavery? Definitely. Nothing says objectification more than literally buying and selling living people.

I think you just don't understand just how much breadth objectification covers, because it is a whole lot more than feminism.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]forbiddenone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]lionhart2800 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Actually, for the most part its one of the few terms that is generally used correctly.

Id say the reason for this isnt because of anything being done on their behalf, but because objectification of women is actually the only issue that is prominent in first world countries today. I mean men get objectified too, but its hard to measure how much a gender gets objectified since both are so widespread.

However, in the end, its the only problem feminism talks about that is actually still a problem we are working towards solving

The majority of the rest of the shit that comes out of feminism are twisted numbers, but one needs walk down a magazine aisle to see half naked men and women spread out all over the place and see that objectification is still a thing.

Furthermore, few men's magazines have cover stories in the same vein as women's magazines. Most notably, most women's magazines have stories and articles still centered around men. How to please your man, how to tell if your man is cheating, 50 sex tips to make him love you, what men what, what men don't want. What men hate, how to lose weight (to impres your man) etc etc

Men's articles are simply 'how to look better', there is significantly less interest in advice being given in regards to women, and instead actually advise men to do things for themselves.

You don't have to believe me or take my word for it, go leaf through men and womens magazines, and see how often women get mentioned in men's magazines and how often men get mentioned in women's.

Its not a remotely equal ratio :/

[–]forbiddenone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lionhart2800 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The first step to solving a problem is recognizing it exists, and then trying to find a solution.

Take the enslavement of africans in america. For the longest time, the average american didn't consider slavery to be wrong or 'bad'.

They viewed it as 'just how things outta be, if it wasn't supposed to be like this, then how come its happening?'

This is a naive view to take, but common. People like to think we live in a wonderful utopia with most of our basic problems solved. We like to turn blind eyes to issues because 'thats just how things are, can't fix it'

Yet time and time again we've proven that problems have solutions, but they are generally complicated and take a lot of work.

But as long as people think there isn't a problem, we'll never solve it. So the first step is awareness. BE aware of objectification of women in media.

Example: Take a look at gender validation in gender based commercials. Shaving tools, food, gender roles, etc etc. Watch how often you see a man shave himself and then a sexy woman comes up and caresses his face. Watch how often men come out of showers to get caressed by women, how often men drive cars alone or with women, whereas women are pretty much always depicted as driving their cars with kids in the back seats...

The list goes on and on. It starts early. Boys commercials depict the boys as being their toys, in a form of power roleplay. Girls on the other hand are depicted as interacting with their toys, in a social roleplay.

These gender roles are enforced from the start. Whether they are good, bad, natural or unnatural, is up to you.

But first recognize they happen, there is no arguing that. Then its up to you to decide how you feel about them.

[–]forbiddenone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lionhart2800 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]forbiddenone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FereldenRed Pill Man-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppd_FrameEnforcerRed Pill Man[M] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]FereldenRed Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FereldenRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FereldenRed Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FereldenRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FereldenRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kraetosWell-adjusted individual1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOneNeither-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppd_FrameEnforcerRed Pill Man[M] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]assmunchinator-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ppd_FrameEnforcerRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I think I explained the whole "lesbians like pictures of naked women too" thing elsewhere.

I'm bi.

I like men and women.

But in my personal experience, only men take it upon themselves to express their sexual desire to me in ways that often oversteps boundaries. And I guess butch lesbians who act like men do too. But I dislike that and I personally don't find butch women attractive.

For example when I go to a regular club. My ass might be grabbed. Some dude might pull me to him without even engaging me first. All stuff that is sort of "wtf" and aggressive.

When I go to lesbian clubs. This shit doesn't happen. And yet lesbian women still manage to fuck and makeout with other women at the club or after the club or whatever.

So if anything, men being more aggressive with their sexual interests may lead to women feeling objectified by men more than women.

Just saying.

That said. I've been to gay male clubs and those guys are very aggressive too. The difference is men like that shit (most of them) and respond well to it. Women don't. Perhaps it's because other men aren't as threatened by other men... Similar size. Similar way of thinking. Perhaps it's because they all crave sex at the same very high intense level. Who knows.

That said women may like rough and aggressive sex with someone who they decided they trust enough to fuck. But that initial entitlement to her body at first greeting is a turn off.

My boyfriend can grab my ass and squeeze it randomly. Joe Ho Random on the street cannot.

[–]ExpendableOneNeither0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LaRochefoucauld-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LaRochefoucauld1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Objectification is a term Feminists created to demonize male sexuality.

Comments

SorryNotSorry

Title	Objectification is a term Feminists created to demonize male sexuality.
Author	RedPill4LYF
Upvotes	6
Comments	155
Date	December 5, 2014 5:26 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2oc6v4/objectification_is_a_term_feminists_created_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/objectification-is-a-term-feminists-created-to.284191 https://theredarchive.com/post/284191