Objectifying women

[tackattack]

I know this is a debate forum dotard, and I wasn't attacking his position. I was giving my opinion (unsolicited of course) of why in real life his comment would elicit the same response as it got in here.

As to your OP

---

Who does it? Beauty pageants? Husler magazine and the like?

No. It is the women portrayed in these things that are objectifying themselves. None of these participants were/are forced into these portrayals. They volunteered, signed up and willingly participated in this objectification.

Those who voice a problem with this seem to be blaming the chosen medium of these women when it is the women themselves who shoulder the blame. I also believe it is worthy of note that in my experiances the women who complain and holler about "That" or "This" objectifys women are those who could not even get past the initial screening to become part of it. IOW, jealousy of the beautiful is what I believe drives their hatred of mens clubs, magazines or beauty pageants.

Some womens bodies are a freakin' work of art. Beautiful. And just like a beautiful painting, sculpture or sunset, they are enjoyable to look at. By all. Men are not the only ones who enjoy beauty pageants. Look at the audience at these things, just as many women in attendance as men. I'm digressing here.

My point is those who holler 'objectifys women!' should not be hating the game, but the players. If it weren't for the players, there would be no game.

---

who does it.. people objectify. If you objectify yourself you really should share the blame (albeit lesser unless intentional)with anyone else who's objectifying you and taking advantage, but no one should feel the right to take advantage based on objectivity, IMO.

[Paul the Human]

What constitutes 'objectifying' a woman, exactly? I mean, I know what society means by it and I agree that it is wrong, while simultaneously feeling that someone should be allowed to be objectified willingly for personal gain (strippers, porn stars, models, beauty pageant contestants, etc).

But... if I see a smokin' hot woman walking down the street in a halter top and tight little jean shorts... and I watch her the entire time with "Mmmmm..." running through my head... am I objectifying her? If so, isn't that why she dressed that way in the first place? Either way, am I wrong for seeing her as an object of sexual desire? Because I really can't help that. I'm pretty entrenched in my rampant heterosexuality.

[Dotard]

Even though you personally are not blaming the victim, any expectation for the victim to have to be more alert than men have to be for their whole lives, will not go over well, especially when to do so would be to avoid the very things society tells us we should do, like dress attractive.

Stop right there. No one is saying women have to be more alert then men. Men need to stay alert for danger. Being a man doesn't give you a free pass from the dangerous/criminal actions of others. I, and I bet all the other dudes here, look over their shoulders when walking down a dark street. We look around to become aware of our surroundings before using the ATM.
I've asked simple Yes or No questions here which are ignored, I say because the nay-sayers know the fucking answers to them, but I shall try again.;

If I do not look around and become aware of my surroundings, if I walk up to the dimly lit ATM not scoping it out first for danger knowing full well there are those who stalk ATMs looking for unaware naive victims, and just walk up and begin cashing out counting the money in full view of any around, then walk off, get followed and mugged. Do I or do I not hold some responsibility for the theft due to my ignorant actions of 1.)Ignoring inherent dangers. 2.)Not moving on to use an ATM in a more lit, secure place. 3.)Flashing and counting my money out in the open. It's a simple Yes or No question.

"Society" is not "telling" anyone to dress suductively, just as it's not telling me I have to use that ATM machine.

That expectation for the victim to prevent the rape from happening is too often used as the reason to blame the victim, even if you weren't trying to do that.

Do you hold an expectation for one to prevent the theft of their wallet? Do you hold a reasonable expectation for a woman to put the purse strap across the shoulders instead of dangling in one hand to twart the purse snatchers EXPECIALLY after they got a look at the wad inside? Do you berate the public service announcements that tell women "Put the strap across the shoulders"? Would you NOT tell a recent victim of purse-snatching "Put the strap across your shoulders this time."?

Anyways, it's not ever been concluded that sexy clothing catches the attention of potential rapists...

I linked a study that includes that in it's conclusions. But just like the abrafuckinghamic god believers, it was chosen to be ignored because it goes against what they are emotionally attached to and believe is so.

I say again, the reason rape exists is evolutionary and biological.

Every man has this urge to procreate in one way or another. In 99% of us it is easily controlled and kept in check. WE know what the triggers are. WE know what intices the instinct. Any man who denies this and states "I never thought of sex with her, honey" is lying just as the man who says "I never jacked-off!" Lying just as much as the guy who says they used to jack off but they quit. When you women are with your men and find yourself elbowing him in the ribs for 'checking out' some "bitch" are you catching them checking out the fat-assed ones? The wheelchair bound ones? The ones in burkas? Or are you catching then oogling the hottie in daisy dukes? Or the hottie with 1/2 the tits hanging out?

And you nay-saying men, when you are hanging with the fellas checking out the chicks are you poking your buddy telling them "OOooH!! Check out that one" and point to the buffalos at the ice cream counter? "Boy, I wouldn't mind some of that." you say as you point to the cow coming out of the all-you-can-eat buffet?

Men are VISUALLY stimulated. Look it up. 99% of porn buyers are men for a reason. Women. I'm guessing based on what I've read, are stimulated more based on emotional reasons. So it's easy to see why a majority of them cannot fathom that rape isn't an emotionally based play of power.
I think it is safe to assume 99% of those who commit rape are men. With that in mind;

Who would you really want to get your rape prevention advice from? I would advocte the most effective rape prevention advice would come from actual convicted rapists. Barring that, then from the group statisticly shown to be the committers of such.

But to each their own. Continue seeking comforting emo other than practical advice if it makes you feel better.

---

If you objectify yourself you really should share the blame (albeit lesser unless intentional)with anyone else who's objectifying you and taking advantage,

Oh goddamnit, that is exactly what I and others have been saying. In the context of this discussion; Woman objectifies herself by hanging the ass and 1/2 the tits out there for all to see, another objectifys her and takes advantage, share the blame. A few posts ago I believe it was you who was saying "Never the blame", and now you are accepting the concept?

but no one should feel the right to take advantage based on objectivity, IMO.

Hellllllllooooooooo..... we have been saying that all along.

[Scented Nectar]

But... if I see a smokin' hot woman walking down the street in a halter top and tight little jean shorts... and I watch her the entire time with "Mmmmm..." running through my head... am I objectifying her? If so, isn't that why she dressed that way in the first place? Either way, am I wrong for seeing her as an object of sexual desire? Because I really can't help that. I'm pretty entrenched in my rampant heterosexuality.

There is nothing wrong with that at all. And women do the same to men (they're usually not wearing halter tops though!). Nothing wrong with that at all. The feminist argument against objectification is only valid in my opinion in places where women are still owned as breeder/sex objects.

I should probably admit here in this thread, that during the 80's I got caught up in the reverse-sexist cult of overly radical feminism. Got pulled into the political stuff by wanting some same-sex sex and hanging around a crowd who were both lesbian and political. Since the day I left, which was pretty much when I realized that my sexual preference was swinging bigtime in favour of playing with penises again, I had to look at the whole set of dogma I had swallowed along with the good anti-sexism messages. That included the assumption that no woman should ever want to do anything that had ever been forced on any woman ever. I had to rethink what I thought of the way everyone looked down on women who do things like, choose to live as homemakers by choice, and women who choose to be part of things like the sex industry (even mild beauty pageants), and women who just plain desire to having sex with men at all, especially the last one since what makes a person horny is not a choice. Sexual objectification was seen as always bad even when done by both genders. Also, there was the assumption that no men were evolving in their attitudes whereas there are quite a few. More and more every year it seems. Just like with most other isms in the world.

[tackattack]

I know dotard we're saying almost the same thing. However I was saying that if you're not objectifying yourself you shouldn't have the blame. If you're wearing clothes to get attention that's objectifying, intentional or unintentional. If you're wearing clothes beacuse it's hot and that's all you had , you're not objectifying. There's no way for the obsever to 100% gauge the intent without interaction.

[Scented Nectar]

Stop right there. No one is saying women have to be more alert then men. Men need to stay alert for danger. Being a man doesn't give you a free pass from the dangerous/criminal actions of others. I, and I bet all the other dudes here, look over their shoulders when walking down a dark street. We look around to become aware of our surroundings before using the ATM.

Actually, you are saying women should be more alert than men, since women already have to be alert to things like ATM thefts in addition to sex crimes, maybe more than you men since we are smaller physically. And for sexual violence, every woman already takes more precautions than men, avoiding walking in deserted areas whenever possible etc. It is completely unreasonable to also expect women to avoid popular fashion, popular entertainment (having a drink or two), and going home in a way that's popular (flagging a cab). These things are popular for a reason. Lots of people enjoy them and consider them a commonplace and acceptable thing.

If I do not look around and become aware of my surroundings, if I walk up to the dimly lit ATM not scoping it out first for danger knowing full well there are those who stalk ATMs looking for unaware naive victims, and just walk up and begin cashing out counting the money in full view of any around, then walk off, get followed and mugged. Do I or do I not hold some responsibility for the theft due to my ignorant actions of 1.)Ignoring inherent dangers. 2.)Not moving on to use an ATM in a more lit, secure place. 3.)Flashing and counting my money out in the open. It's a simple Yes or No question.

No. Just like you wouldn't be to blame for getting robbed after openly displaying that you have a job, and therefore money, by dressing in a manner that flaunts it (I hear you openly carry a briefcase, you hussy!). And I'm disregarding the bad neighbourhood part of what you wrote, since there is no such parallel in rapes. It most often happens in what should be thought of logically as the safest place, the home.

"Society" is not "telling" anyone to dress suductively, just as it's not telling me I have to use that ATM machine.

It is telling women that attractive clothing/appearance is desirable and should be sought after. It's a multi-million dollar industry, maybe multi-billion.

Anyways, it's not ever been concluded that sexy clothing catches the attention of potential rapists...

I linked a study that includes that in it's conclusions.

I didn't see that. I'll take a look for it later, unless you want to repost the url, in which case, sooner than later.

Every man has this urge to procreate in one way or another.

Women get horny and want to breed too, so what?

In 99% of us it is easily controlled and kept in check. WE know what the triggers are. WE know what intices the instinct. Any man who denies this and states "I never thought of sex with her, honey" is lying just as the man who says "I never jacked-off!" Lying just as much as the guy who says they used to jack off but they quit. When you women are with your men and find yourself elbowing him in the ribs for 'checking out' some "bitch" are you catching them checking out the fat-assed ones? The wheelchair bound ones? The ones in burkas? Or are you catching then oogling the hottie in daisy dukes? Or the hottie with 1/2 the tits hanging out?

You are mixing up nonviolent things like consentual sex and masturbation with rape. Rapists get horny about forcing it, and what is the world supposed to do? Should women everywhere compete to be the ugliest and most unnoticeable in order to avoid a potential attack? Only a minority of women have even BEEN raped so, for most it's not even really on the mind as something to worry extra about any more than any of a zillion other possible crimes out there. As far as your jealous woman scenario, I'm guessing that the reason rapists go after some unpopular for sex types, is their higher physical vulnerability factor, which is probably a part of what makes the rapist horny.

Men are VISUALLY stimulated. Look it up. 99% of porn buyers are men for a reason. Women. I'm guessing based on what I've read, are stimulated more based on emotional reasons. So it's easy to see why a majority of them cannot fathom that rape isn't an emotionally based play of power.

That's bull. Lots of women like porn. I'm one of them. With the same freedom that men have, more and more women are enjoying porn. Only societal/cultural teachings steer some women towards needing to always attach emotions to sex. Mixed in with that is the message women got from society saying that desiring more than just one lover is wrong. Approved 'porn' for women (aka romance novels) has always attached a huge lump of emotional and life goal fulfillment with the most boring softcore sex ever. Porn does not cause rape by the way, so what does this whole porn thing have to do with it? It probably even prevents a few. Since there are many categories of porn, a rapist can wank to a staged rape scene, and maybe that's one less real life assault on someone. And who said that rape is an emotion based power play? It's someone acting on the fact that the (over)powering is making him horny, not just power games either, but full out nonconsent and force. I've nothing against people consentually play power games or whatever.

In the context of this discussion; Woman objectifies herself by hanging the ass and 1/2 the tits out there for all to see, another objectifys her and takes advantage, share the blame. A few posts ago I believe it was you who was saying "Never the blame", and now you are accepting the concept?

Why do you assume that objectification in itself will lead to someone taking advantage? A person who decides to carry out desires of hurting/harming others is going to try and do it no matter what. No matter how non-objectified everyone is. And really, everyone objectifies lots of people traits, not just sex, to some degree anyways, so really is it even a factor? Objectifying does not necessarily mean that you want to harm the person. That would only be the case if you were already the type to harm before objectifying. I completely objectify men sometimes on things like their dick sizes and looks, but I certainly don't want to hurt any. If an attractive guy is hurting or even just not horny about me in particular, I lose my horniness for them. I may want to comfort them or something if they are hurting, but have sex with them? Not unless they are going to enjoy it too. You see, I often objectify men sexually, but the idea of hurting them/nonconsent does not make me horny, no matter how much I objectify men as sex objects, and no matter how little I objectify them either.

[Autumnlicious]

Stop right there. No one is saying women have to be more alert then men. Men need to stay alert for danger. Being a man doesn't give you a free pass from the dangerous/criminal actions of others. I, and I bet all the other dudes here, look over their shoulders when walking down a dark street. We look around to become aware of our surroundings before using the ATM.

Actually, you are saying women should be more alert than men, since women already have to be alert to things like ATM thefts in addition to sex crimes, maybe more than you men since we are smaller physically. And for sexual violence, every woman already takes more precautions than men, avoiding walking in deserted areas whenever possible etc. It is completely unreasonable to also expect women to avoid popular fashion, popular entertainment (having a drink or two), and going home in a way that's popular (flagging a cab). These things are popular for a reason. Lots of people enjoy them and consider them a commonplace and acceptable thing.

No he isn't. By the statistics, male on male violence, especially when it comes to homicide, dominates when compared to male on female violence, by sheer numbers and percentage. Even when you factor in men raping women and try comparing it to males killing other males, you'll find that the majority of men cited would more likely murder a few of their peers over raping a vulnerable woman.

Clearly, if we were to talk alertness and look at statistics as a guide, males should be more watchful. But as I notice, in matters of high emotion and flying absolutes, reason and logic fly out the damn window.

But let me set you right, without needing to fall back on absolutes of the sort often asserted by theists, and point out a big thing called risk. Risk is everywhere. For example, there is a minor chance when I go to refill my car at the gas station, if I am not paying attention, I may cause a spark when dragging the nozzle around like a caveman - doesn't mean I still can't drag it like a caveman, it simply means that there is a chance of things going south even under my direct control.

In matters regarding two or more persons, there are associated risks. One of them could be that another person is shady and has a high chance of trying to harm you, be it sexually or physically - that risk may not be obviously apparent, but if one detects or picks up on this threat before it manifests, then one could conceivably remove themself from the situation at hand. This is how the majority of people operate - they try to maximize their chances of avoiding harm, scoring a job through acting more courageous during the interview, etc,.

Due to the gradient of interactions and chances, it is logical to note that credit denotes how much of successive actions depend on you, another or both of you (extends up to any number). Certainly you would not think it was all your credit for scoring a job - the job offerer in the first place had to decide you were the right one in the first place, and your song and dance, as it was, convinced them of that.

Now, at the very base level, every action pertaining to you or done by you has the associated property of being linked to you. Every relationship, for good or ill, ties into those actions, where some own more of an action or are connected with more actions than you are in an event or series of events.

This is because we are all connected in a community and every (human) action is connected, sometimes by proxy, with another human.

In matters pertaining to rape, it is clear to anyone with an unclouded mind that the victim did not manage to avoid or even detect the threat displayed in the criminal(s). Does that make the victim more responsible, because they were "unlucky"? No, but if we were to unify our behavior to be more just, it would do if we were to note the conditions, the scenario, whether or not the victim suspected an event occurring, etc,. Surely you would want to establish clearly and without a shadow of a doubt who did what and the degrees of the burden of actions involved with each party - and in the majority of cases, the victim will obviously have an insignificant degree of responsibility, actions - I mean, obviously, the victim has been savagely attacked and brutalized by a thinking human predator.

However, a well built legal system is not one that can take these obvious cases, but one that can take clear directives (laws) and apply them as justly as possible to all matters criminal. That means that sometimes, the criminal(s) were in a heat of passion (see crime of passion), the victim made a reasonable error in judgement (see death by misadventure) or any matter of combinations that arbitrarily can mitigate a criminal(s) actions, show that that victim bears more responsibility (like the woman who owned a chimpanzee that went apeshit one day and nearly killed her - she kept the critter against the recommendations of others and despite knowledge the it (the chimp) was behaving erratically), etc,. Conceivably, there could be a crime where all of the responsibility is of the victims (The victim walked into a bar, provoked a fight, pulled a knife and in the ensuing chaos, was killed by the mass of panicking people (they stepped on him and a few others in their mad rush to get out - however, let it be noticed that it was dark and they weren't going to see him)) as we can conceive of a crime that is solely of the criminals responsibility (a human predator tracks down some college student girl and rapes her - she had no idea he was tracking her).

There is give and take, at least conceptually. Risk and responsibility is everywhere and we all are bound by it.

If I do not look around and become aware of my surroundings, if I walk up to the dimly lit ATM not scoping it out first for danger knowing full well there are those who stalk ATMs looking for unaware naive victims, and just walk up and begin cashing out counting the money in full view of any around, then walk off, get followed and mugged. Do I or do I not hold some responsibility for the theft due to my ignorant actions of 1.)Ignoring inherent dangers. 2.)Not moving on to use an ATM in a more lit, secure place. 3.)Flashing and counting my money out in the open. It's a simple Yes or No question.

No. Just like you wouldn't be to blame for getting robbed after openly displaying that you have a job, and therefore money, by dressing in a manner that flaunts it (I hear you openly carry a briefcase, you hussy!). And I'm disregarding the bad neighbourhood part of what you wrote, since there is no such parallel in rapes. It most often happens in what should be thought of logically as the safest place, the home.

"Society" is not "telling" anyone to dress suductively, just as it's not telling me I have to use that ATM machine.

It is telling women that attractive clothing/appearance is desirable and should be sought after. It's a multi-million dollar industry, maybe multi-billion.

Let me stop you there - just because society told you to jump off a cliff, would'ya do it? You can only blame society so much until it boils down to the actors at hand, and then we're several paragraphs up.

Other than that, let it be noted that I disagree with Dotards later statements, as it has the unfortunate connotation that men are merely animals, unable to control themselves within the bounds of law and society. That, I would think, would be one of the biggest crimes of all with respect to oneself. The crime of being unable to control oneself.

[bozo]

Dotard, what you are arguing could be really radical in a legal context.
You seem to be suggesting that the courts should view robbery/rape somewhat differently than they now do.
If I understand you correctly, a robber/rapist could offer the defence that the victim had shared responsibility. If that were accepted then a much lighter sentence would follow or indeed no sentence.
Is this your proposition?

[Tiberius]

If that's what he's suggesting then I'm in complete disagreement; but I don't think that is his position at all (I'm prepared to be corrected though). The point we made was that the crime is totally the rapist's; he was the one who committed the act, and should be punished. Responsibility can be shared (though not equally of course) between both parties though; the rapist is responsible for going out and doing the crime in the first place, whilst the woman can share some of the responsibility if she was knowingly irresponsible (i.e. walking home alone, going through bad neighbourhoods, etc).

Another thing I noticed here is that a lot of you seem to be going back to the "well most rapes are done in the home, by people the victim knows", as if this is some kind of point against ours. Whilst this is true, it doesn't have anything to do with what we were originally saying, which was specifically to do with rape that happens because a woman has a lot on show, and is going into a vulnerable situation knowingly. So please, focus on the actual scenarios we are focusing on, rather than coming up with stats that whilst true, bear nothing towards the actual points we were making.

[bozo]

If that's what he's suggesting then I'm in complete disagreement; but I don't think that is his position at all (I'm prepared to be corrected though). The point we made was that the crime is totally the rapist's; he was the one who committed the act, and should be punished. Responsibility can be shared (though not equally of course) between both parties though; the rapist is responsible for going out and doing the crime in the first place, whilst the woman can share some of the responsibility if she was knowingly irresponsible (i.e. walking home alone, going through bad neighbourhoods, etc).

Another thing I noticed here is that a lot of you seem to be going back to the "well most rapes are done in the home, by people the victim knows", as if this is some kind of point against ours. Whilst this is true, it doesn't have anything to do with what we were originally saying, which was specifically to do with rape that happens because a woman has a lot on show, and is going into a vulnerable situation knowingly. So please, focus on the actual scenarios we are focusing on, rather than coming up with stats that whilst true, bear nothing towards the actual points we were making.

Well maybe you should let Dotard answer me? But your answer is no answer in the legal context I am suggesting i.e a defence of shared responsibility.
And what's with this " us " and " you "? I'm not in a camp.