I clicked on this purely because of the tits in the thumbnail.
Not even ashamed.
Whereas I, on the other hand, legitimately did not even notice that at all until you pointed it out.
I wonder what that says, if anything.
I clicked on this purely because of the tits in the thumbnail.
Not even ashamed.
Whereas I, on the other hand, legitimately did not even notice that at all until you pointed it out.
I wonder what that says, if anything.
@Panda:
Whereas I, on the other hand, legitimately did not even notice that at all until you pointed it out.
I wonder what that says, if anything.
It says everything. You have one week to live, I'm sorry. Honestly though, I myself thought it was a skinny guy jogging shirtless at first glance.
–------------------------------------------------------
Is this video against the objectification of women or for?
It was doing fine until the end. It might seem obvious what the answer might be but notice what it says at the end. Something along the lines of "you're just not you when you're hungry." It's supposed to be in a jokey haha buy our product way but it kind of dumps on the first 90% of the video.
Oh, and the answer? The video is for the sell of Snickers, duh!
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@taBills:
oh definitely
speaking of men = money objectification, an interesting development of this is the Cartoon Network thing that happened last year where they cancelled shows because too many female viewers were watching them. The shows were popular, but there was too many women in the audience. In CN marketing, they want male viewers watching certain shows because studies showed boys tend to spend more money on toys. So not only would toys not be made, the shows would get cancelled because of demographics. It's the most frustrating thing because it takes away any value we had at all! Can only support a show by NOT WATCHING. We aren't even objects, we're a disease. Where is the cartoon suffragists
http://io9.com/paul-dini-superhero-cartoon-execs-dont-want-largely-f-1483758317
THAT'S why they cancelled Young Justice!? NoooOoooooooOOOOoo!!!
http://io9.com/paul-dini-superhero-cartoon-execs-dont-want-largely-f-1483758317
THAT'S why they cancelled Young Justice!? NoooOoooooooOOOOoo!!!
That's what got Tower Prep canceled YJ was cancelled for some entirely different but no less stupid of a reason.
That's what got Tower Prep canceled YJ was cancelled for some entirely different but no less stupid of a reason.
Ah, ok.
NoOoooOoooOOOOOOoooooO!
@taBills:
i was just wondering if you had an example of this? Do you mean like, as a girl, walking down the street and seeing a guy and thinking 'hot or not??'
To objectify someone sexually is to erase someone's entire personality and see them entirely as sex appeal. If you see a random dude on the street, it's pretty hard to look at him and only think about him in a sexualized way without bringing in personality. And i know you personally (along with most women i know i think) value personality very highly, perhaps even more so than sex appeal. Would you agree?
I think there's a degree to which personality being considered isn't much more than something really shallow too though.
You can still think about temperament and stuff and not think about them as a full fledged person. Like people categorizing with "ah good they're quiet and submissive or, ah shit they're fuckin' crazy".
I think Chrissie really is on to something more common than what we're talking here. Which is people looking for hookups and summing them up in a "WHAT WILL THE GIRLS/GUYS THINK". Which would include personality, but in a objectified way. Looking at people as social conquests, trophies to flaunt. I'm watching a close friend of mine attempt the dating world right now, and every time he brings up looks it's obvious what he's worrying about a million times more than sex is what the shitheads he hangs out with aside from me will say and think.
He's worried about looking like a virginal loser.
Isn't this actual human discussion we're having great though without the WHOOSH crew dunking 10000 word basketballs in the dumpster across the street from the court?
@Monkey:
I think there's a degree to which personality being considered isn't much more than something really shallow too though.
You can still think about temperament and stuff and not think about them as a full fledged person. Like people categorizing with "ah good they're quiet and submissive or, ah shit they're fuckin' crazy".
I think Chrissie really is on to something more common than what we're talking here. Which is people looking for hookups and summing them up in a "WHAT WILL THE GIRLS/GUYS THINK". Which would include personality, but in a objectified way. Looking at people as social conquests, trophies to flaunt. I'm watching a close friend of mine attempt the dating world right now, and every time he brings up looks it's obvious what he's worrying about a million times more than sex is what the shitheads he hangs out with aside from me will say and think.
He's worried about looking like a virginal loser.
Thinking about the objectification of people by their personalities I feel men have to deal with this type of non-physical objectification more frequently. While both men and women face objectification of both their appearance and other factors it's in unequal measure. Take the example of a woman turning down a man's offer, for a relationship, because she finds out she makes more money than he does, or he just has a low paying job. Is it just as likely, or maybe even more, a man would turn down a woman's offer for that same reason? Women and men value personality but society puts more attention on a woman's attractiveness being the focus and a man's non-physical assets being his focus. Which is why though both might look at personality women seem to value it more.
Take a look at the formulaic family tv shows. Attractive mother of family married to the usually not so attractive dad, but hey, he's pretty funny~ The mom can also be funny, smart, loving, heck doesn't have to work, but she must be attractive. The dad on the other doesn't need to be attractive and yeah he should be funny, but he better have a decent job and be shown as the leader/head of the family when times get tough because men our supposed to be the head honcho. This is the usual. Even when the man is portrayed as a complete doofus (think Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin) the family usually huddle around him and seek bis guidance.
I see what Taboo is saying when she says women value a guys personality very highly, and that when she sees a guy it's hard too solely objectify him on his physical appearance without bringing in personality. I know a lot of guys where that is not the case in regards to girls. They don't care if the girl is crazy or not as long as she's hot and good in bed. I see what you're saying too in that judging someone on whether or not they're "cool" or whatever is just as much of a shallow objectification.
I think that objectification is targeted more towards men though. At least when it comes to relationships.
Isn't this actual human discussion we're having great though without the WHOOSH crew dunking 10000 word basketballs in the dumpster across the street from the court?
achoo
Thinking about the objectification of people by their personalities I feel men have to deal with this type of non-physical objectification more frequently. While both men and women face objectification of both their appearance and other factors it's in unequal measure. Take the example of a woman turning down a man's offer, for a relationship, because she finds out she makes more money than he does, or he just has a low paying job. Is it just as likely, or maybe even more, a man would turn down a woman's offer for that same reason? Women and men value personality but society puts more attention on a woman's attractiveness being the focus and a man's non-physical assets being his focus. Which is why though both might look at personality women seem to value it more.
Take a look at the formulaic family tv shows. Attractive mother of family married to the usually not so attractive dad, but hey, he's pretty funny~ The mom can also be funny, smart, loving, heck doesn't have to work, but she must be attractive. The dad on the other doesn't need to be attractive and yeah he should be funny, but he better have a decent job and be shown as the leader/head of the family when times get tough because men our supposed to be the head honcho. This is the usual. Even when the man is portrayed as a complete doofus (think Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin) the family usually huddle around him and seek bis guidance.
I see what Taboo is saying when she says women value a guys personality very highly, and that when she sees a guy it's hard too solely objectify him on his physical appearance without bringing in personality. I know a lot of guys where that is not the case in regards to girls. They don't care if the girl is crazy or not as long as she's hot and good in bed. I see what you're saying too in that judging someone on whether or not they're "cool" or whatever is just as much of a shallow objectification.
I think that objectification is targeted more towards men though. At least when it comes to relationships.
to the bolded:
is that in general? cause I see that being thrown around a lot, but I don't think it's true.
to the bolded:
is that in general? cause I see that being thrown around a lot, but I don't think it's true.
Yes, that's in general. I think our social environment has geared many people towards that mindset, but I was also speaking from a personal point of view."I know a lot of guys." It could be a lot of machismo talking when men say they don't care about how the girl acts, they just care about how she looks. I'm not saying a lot of women don't have those thoughts but I see guys think that way more frequently.
I don't understand how a girl can put up with that, though. A guy only caring that she's hot. Some guy don't care about me, he's not getting any from me. I guess the guy could be deceiving… or maybe the girl has low self esteem? I guess some people are just more casual about dating and sex too.
I asked if that was in general because you have a lot of girls who don't even care about guys personalities either. Whenever discussions come up, I tend to see people refer to girls as the ones who never get stimulated just by mere physical attraction. But that isn't always the case. I've seen so many threads where girls are just flocking to a guy for his appearance. Like Chris Hemsworth, for instance. Or even that show "Arrow". Or the countless romance novels that show ripped muscular guys, with their heads often being cut off from the cover. Even in middle school, I remember some girls trying to hug this 8th grader on the basketball team just because he was tall, handsome, and had some muscle.
Girls show as much attraction to this as much as guys do. And guys care about personality as well, just not during one-time casual sex.
^^If anyone tells you women don't ever get stimulated by physical appearance alone they're an idiot. Women can be attracted to physical apperance as much as any man but women overall/generally don't put as much emphasis on it as men.
Think about Hugh Hefener. Old, wrinkly, perverted, and overall creep. Yet, how many times has he been married to young beautiful women not even half his age for his presitge and wealth? How many young handsome men do you hear about seriously pursuing ummm…I don't know, someone like Bettie White for her prestige or money? Overall, awesome woman. Think of all the elderly male celebrities who date well below their age. Yeah, you can probably think of some elderly women who have a bunch of male pursuers well below their age but for everyone you can name I can name twice as many males.
As for your basketball player example, could the girls attraction to him not have something to do with him...I don't know being on the basketball team? Popular perhaps. Men and women can be pretty shallow and when you strip someone down and see them only as a "thing" to be exploited while disregarding them as a person, whether that "thing" be "sexy", "rich", "smart", or "popular", it's objectification.
I don't understand how a girl can put up with that, though. A guy only caring that she's hot. Some guy don't care about me, he's not getting any from me. I guess the guy could be deceiving… or maybe the girl has low self esteem? I guess some people are just more casual about dating and sex too.
The girl may be using the guy in the relationship too. "He might only look at me as a nice body but I'm dating the most popular guy in school" or "I know this guy is only with me for the sex but he has a place to stay and a car." Plenty of times this is not the case and the girl might have low self esteem, family issues, or suffering from any internal struggle and falling on hard times which got her into that relationship. Other times, yes, people are just more casual about dating and sex.
Being hot can get you a few dates but if your personality sucks, it's probably won't get you anything long term. Having a good personality and maybe a good sense of humor can make women think flawed facial features are cute or appealing. Just look at The Hound from GoT or Erik from Phantom of the Opera. Erik didnt get the girl because he was being a possessive nut, but there are a ton of women who found him brooding and sexy. It's just more complicated. I think it can be pretty complicated for men too, but maybe they're constantly being told what they should be attracted to all the time that they just don't get a chance to see what they really want.
charisma can be very very attractive, regardless of how you look.
dude. 100% Charisma all the way.
@Monkey:
Isn't this actual human discussion we're having great though without the WHOOSH crew dunking 10000 word basketballs in the dumpster across the street from the court?
Almost as if the discussion that other humans were having could not be compared to that of the king of the monkeys. I'm pretty sure that we felt like we were contributing a bit. And you know that a conscientious reader probably learned something from what we had to say, too. Hmm… Maybe they just learned not to have "actual human discussions" with the "WHOOSH" crew.
I agree with you, though, that many people do a fair bit of objectifying others on a day-to-day basis. Many people are far too selfish to actually consider the world from some one else's point of view.
Not sure how true this is, but I always got the feeling that women tended to objectify men a lot as well. One of the reasons many girls prefer that "bad boy" feel that some guys have. They're not thinking about his actual personality, whether he would make a good mate, etc. Instead, they're attracted to his image, attitude, and "cool" factor.
^^If anyone tells you women don't ever get stimulated by physical appearance alone they're an idiot. Women can be attracted to physical apperance as much as any man but women overall/generally don't put as much emphasis on it as men.
Think about Hugh Hefener. Old, wrinkly, perverted, and overall creep. Yet, how many times has he been married to young beautiful women not even half his age for his presitge and wealth? How many young handsome men do you hear about seriously pursuing ummm…I don't know, someone like Bettie White for her prestige or money? Overall, awesome woman. Think of all the elderly male celebrities who date well below their age. Yeah, you can probably think of some elderly women who have a bunch of male pursuers well below their age but for everyone you can name I can name twice as many males.
As for your basketball player example, could the girls attraction to him not have something to do with him...I don't know being on the basketball team? Popular perhaps. Men and women can be pretty shallow and when you strip someone down and see them only as a "thing" to be exploited while disregarding them as a person, whether that "thing" be "sexy", "rich", "smart", or "popular", it's objectification.
The girl may be using the guy in the relationship too. "He might only look at me as a nice body but I'm dating the most popular guy in school" or "I know this guy is only with me for the sex but he has a place to stay and a car." Plenty of times this is not the case and the girl might have low self esteem, family issues, or suffering from any internal struggle and falling on hard times which got her into that relationship. Other times, yes, people are just more casual about dating and sex.
the basketball team had nothing to do with it, they didn't give a crap about basketball itself, or any other players in general.
but yeah overall I agree with you and your points
Almost as if the discussion that other humans were having could not be compared to that of the king of the monkeys.
You're easily impressed by ivory tower jibber jabber aren't you.
I'm pretty sure that we felt like we were contributing a bit. And you know that a conscientious reader probably learned something from what we had to say, too. Hmm… Maybe they just learned not to have "actual human discussions" with the "WHOOSH" crew.
Ok what did you learn?
@Monkey:
Ok what did you learn?
Not that this was directed at me, but I shall field the question regardless!
I have learned that pithy one-liners make me an objectively better person than anyone having discourse in which I am not interested.
@Panda:
Not that this was directed at me, but I shall field the question regardless!
I have learned that pithy one-liners make me an objectively better person than anyone having discourse in which I am not interested.
Maybe this is the time guys, maybe this is the time Zephos targets someone for no good reason! Maybe this time!
Whoop pardon me, almost tripped over korobka's rat faced dead account haha.
@Monkey:
You're easily impressed by ivory tower jibber jabber aren't you.
Ok what did you learn?
I'm positing (optimistically) that someone might have learned something from what I added (pretty sure that I wasn't just bullshitting and did provide a reference or two).
But I didn't know specifically about the article that Shipmate posted, so there's that.
I tried to add to your discussion, and you have nothing to say specifically to that? :/
I'm specifically positing that someone might have learned something from what I added (pretty sure that I wasn't just bullshitting and did provide a reference or two).
To be perfectly honest I didn't see anything you posted, but your cheerleading of the big turd in the room is still on the grill here.
I tried to add to your discussion, and you have nothing to say specifically to that? :/
You basically said "Yes, I agree". What do you want?
@Monkey:
To be perfectly honest I didn't see anything you posted, but your cheerleading of the big turd in the room is still on the grill here.
You basically said "Yes, I agree". What do you want?
Oh, wait, so I'm not in the "WHOOSH crew"?
Please ignore me, lol.
I don't understand how a girl can put up with that, though. A guy only caring that she's hot. Some guy don't care about me, he's not getting any from me. I guess the guy could be deceiving… or maybe the girl has low self esteem? I guess some people are just more casual about dating and sex too.
A girl that likes One Piece I must be dreaming.
I should start recording every facial expression i have everytime i enter this thread and read the new posts.
@Shipmate: A general response because I'm too lazy to quote your individual points.
! My point isn't going off of cool calculated robot-like rationale as you stated. The whole attraction to the most "feminine" looking woman is based off of which one displays the quality men naturally look for in women. Which is which one best suits his need for a healthy mate that can reproduce. Even your talk of evolution supports this by puporting men will naturally recognize a more "feminine" fertile looking woman, but this is extremely flawed in determining the absolutes of the relationship between men and women. Attraction is soooo much more than which girl has the best childbearing hips.
! Yes, I understand you want to concentrate on the physical but attraction, femininity, and masculinity aren't just physical traits, as you well know. When you try to limit the conversation to discuss one factor of a smorgasbord of factors it just doesn't work out. It looks like we're oversimplifying and it demeans the whole topic. It demeans both men and women.
! I still found the thought experiment an interesting question but only to make you think a bit. Not prove a point. It doesn't bring you much closer to your goal, and it seems you already had your mind made up anyway. I'm guessing you're trying to convince others.
! Lastly, I have to know. Have you been browsing fetish sites? Hey now, no judgement. I'm just curious if you did it for research. That's devotion right there.
I get your point. However, here, you are making a fine distinction between doing something for research and doing it for titillation. So, is there really no distinction between focusing on the body parts of women for titillation and focusing on them for research? Are both of them objectification of women, like Chrissie said? What would you say about the scientific experiments that focus on certain body parts, or physical characteristics in general, like the ones I posted? Should they be stopped as well?
I understand that you can't understand the whole just by focusing on the part. But it might be noted that examining individual parts as a preparation for examining the whole is also a common method. However, if it makes people uncomfortable I'm willing to stop it.
I'm not really out to convince others, by the way. By the time I came up with the thought experiment, I had a vague feeling of which answer I'd choose, but didn't really have an explicitly formed opinion until you commented on it. Discussion for me is more of a opinion-forming process than a persuading process. The thought experiment itself isn't supposed to prove anything, it's not even an argument. It's the argument for each answer that's supposed to prove something. Everyone's welcome to refute it, of course, and I'm open to changing my mind.
And yes, I did browse those sites for research. Let's believe it as such. :P
@Outerspec:
! Thinking about the objectification of people by their personalities I feel men have to deal with this type of non-physical objectification more frequently. While both men and women face objectification of both their appearance and other factors it's in unequal measure. Take the example of a woman turning down a man's offer, for a relationship, because she finds out she makes more money than he does, or he just has a low paying job. Is it just as likely, or maybe even more, a man would turn down a woman's offer for that same reason? Women and men value personality but society puts more attention on a woman's attractiveness being the focus and a man's non-physical assets being his focus. Which is why though both might look at personality women seem to value it more.
! Take a look at the formulaic family tv shows. Attractive mother of family married to the usually not so attractive dad, but hey, he's pretty funny~ The mom can also be funny, smart, loving, heck doesn't have to work, but she must be attractive. The dad on the other doesn't need to be attractive and yeah he should be funny, but he better have a decent job and be shown as the leader/head of the family when times get tough because men our supposed to be the head honcho. This is the usual. Even when the man is portrayed as a complete doofus (think Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin) the family usually huddle around him and seek bis guidance.
! I see what Taboo is saying when she says women value a guys personality very highly, and that when she sees a guy it's hard too solely objectify him on his physical appearance without bringing in personality. I know a lot of guys where that is not the case in regards to girls. They don't care if the girl is crazy or not as long as she's hot and good in bed. I see what you're saying too in that judging someone on whether or not they're "cool" or whatever is just as much of a shallow objectification.
! I think that objectification is targeted more towards men though. At least when it comes to relationships.
! achoo
1. I'd say that women care about outward appearance far more than men in general. It's just that it's their own appearances, instead of the guys they are interested in, that they care more about. Women in general spend far more time looking after their appearances, in front of the mirror or otherwise. In a casual girl talks you often hear they comment about the appearances of other women and each other, what the other girls are wearing, what kind of hair styles are fashionable and so on. Many girls get angry when their boyfriends/lovers don't notice their new hairstyles, clothes, necklaces, earrings, etc. Many women get really obsessed with weight and panic with subtle weight gain, whereas their boyfriends wouldn't even notice it, or care. So, yes, in general it does seem pretty common that most guys won't demand or even notice the subtle changes in appearance that girls sweat about. You can call it a hard case of self-objectification. Are the guys entirely to blame?
2. Maybe you're right that girls focus more on the non-physical assets of the guys. But so far you have only demonstrated that they are more likely to go after prestige and wealth, as the Hugh Hefner/Betty White comparison showed. Nowhere have you demonstrated that girls care about the personality of their partners more than guys. A formulaic family TV show doesn't prove much of anything. So you haven't convinced me on that point. To sum up: Just because: a) girls care more about non-physical assets in guys like wealth and prestige, and b) personality is a non-physical asset - does not mean that c) girls care more about personality in their partners more than guys.
Nice discussing with you. :)
Just because: a) girls care more about non-physical assets in guys like wealth and prestige, and b) personality is a non-physical asset - does not mean that c) girls care more about personality in their partners more than guys.
Nice discussing with you. :)
Ok, I see your point on that.
–--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a question to any girl out there (or really anyone that feels like answering) because I would love to hear from you on this particular subject. We all know both guys and girls care about personality when choosing a partner, but do you feel girls put more emphasis on it than guys? Do you feel like guys put just as much emphasis on it as girls? Does it really even matter and it all just depends on the person, so don't pick an objectifying creep? I'm partial to the last.
i don't think it's a gender thing. I think it is a perosnal thing. I think both men and women can be shallow in their choices. Not everyone out there is gonna win a top 10 sexiest people award either, but look at all the nice people out there in love. A shallow relationship will only go so far. When you truly love someone, looks don't matter. It's everything else.
^^If this is the case then, I am glad. Thanks~
A shallow relationship will never go far but neither will a relationship where people forget that looks are somewhat important. Sex is important for relationships and when one person feels like the other person is no longer attracted to them physically, for whatever reason, even if they still love each other, it will cause problems. It would be nice to hear how old people feel about this stuff, like 60+ people
Relationships start for a plethora of reasons for both sexes. How long they last and how well they are probably depends on what the catalyst was. The shorter, less healthy relationships were probably started with short sighted factors. Surface personality, surface looks, little things in common, just the right groups friends on both sides etc. Longer, healthier relationships where probably start with better reasoning. But sometimes people just stay together because of convenience or familiarity. And sometimes it's perfectly OK that a relationship only lasted 2-4 years.
I think the entire of idea of "what guys want vs what girls want" is just another part of the unhealthy system that doesn't do proper justice to either side and when you try to actually apply it, it causes more problems than it solves. People are more complicated than that. I know technically women have a shorter window to start a family than guys but I think that obscures things a bit. There is a lot of pressure to start a family sooner rather than later for both sexes, more on women though. I don't think that pressure is fair or right or even amounts to better relationships or families in the end though.
^^Believe me, we're not going to be talking about versus between the genders on this thread. Men and women are different but they're not that different. As you said, people our complicated and there are…layers to any relationship. Just as you said;
There is a lot of pressure to start a family sooner rather than later for both sexes, more on women though.
That's not a versus comment. That's an exploration of differences between the sexes or at least what's imposed on them, which is what I believe people are talking about. The injustice in the differences. The natural differences. The double standards. Things like that.
^^Believe me, we're not going to be talking about versus between the genders on this thread.
Who would win in a fist fight? Arnold Shwarzenegger or Marilyn Monroe? Victor is the superior gender.
Man. I wonder what makes that tall muscular outgoing basketball player in which I don't personally know more attractive than me. Those ladies are so guilty.
I don't think the whole gender thing is biological: I just think it's because men are just more shy or uncomfortable about wearing revealing clothes - and the reason why they are shy is because they don't have to wear anything revealing. And that goes back to the pariarchal society thing.
If men don't have to do that/aren't expected to or are pressured to, then they won't. As a result, it's harder for women to be shallow, since, well, men are never showing their parts around and inviting that. So women have to flock to/objectify men in other ways that can be attractive to the senses.
Just a theory I came up with.
if I'm wrong, then forgive me: I just wanna know more about this in general, cause it's good to know.
I'd say it has more to do with guys being constantly being bombarded with idealistic and even unrealistic images of sexy women since as early as we can remember which leads to a more image based shallowness.
If you had girls raised on extremely idealistic male images and a constant of it they'd probably exhibit similar issues.
Which come to think of it I did notice a bit with some of the more Yaoi obsessed girls I knew in Savannah.
^ So you're saying that all (read: most) guys are either (1) Oppai or (2) Shimapan fans?
^ So you're saying that all (read: most) guys are either (1) Oppai or (2) Shimapan fans?
I don't know what these are.
@Monkey:
I don't know what these are.
Well, I am clearly too knowledgeable about that subject.
Probs not a good thing.
Oppai:
!
You can look up shimapan yourself :ninja:
@Monkey:
I'd say it has more to do with guys being constantly being bombarded with idealistic and even unrealistic images of sexy women since as early as we can remember which leads to a more image based shallowness.
If you had girls raised on extremely idealistic male images and a constant of it they'd probably exhibit similar issues.
Which come to think of it I did notice a bit with some of the more Yaoi obsessed girls I knew in Savannah.
Not sure if I get your point right. That may be true if image based shallowness only started or developed with the modern age. Women have been judged by their appearance more than men since time immemorial. And let's not forget all the pretty boys in classic arts.
Who would win in a fist fight? Arnold Shwarzenegger or Marilyn Monroe? Victor is the superior gender.
I've thought about this question a lot and can't seem to come to any conclusion… I think I need more information first. Like, is Marilyn Monroe a returned from the dead zombie? (This could be important.)
I've thought about this question a lot and can't seem to come to any conclusion… I think I need more information first. Like, is Marilyn Monroe a returned from the dead zombie? (This could be important.)
Excellent, haha. Imagine a zombie Marilyn Monroe fighting a 67 years old beer-bellied Schwarzenegger.
So generally I have an understanding about this, but I still have questions pop up at certain points. Luckily, I'm not really stubborn or anything, and I wanna continue to progress my knowledge towards this.
What do you consider it when a girl or multiple girls are rubbing a guy's abs?
So generally I have an understanding about this, but I still have questions pop up at certain points. Luckily, I'm not really stubborn or anything, and I wanna continue to progress my knowledge towards this.
What do you consider it when a girl or multiple girls are rubbing a guy's abs?
.
What do you consider it when a girl or multiple girls are rubbing a guy's abs?
Well, it's the same thing as Momo did with Nami but Tumblr approves it.
Objectification isn't about the action, it's about the context.
What do you consider it when a girl or multiple girls are rubbing a guy's abs?
This thread is so dumb.
This thread is so dumb.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdaldqkTck1qgy27g.png
.
haha I knew you people would respond with that .
No but seriously, I want a serious response. A lot of people, including me, tend to not fully understand this. Answers like these don't really help. All I want is a legit answer. I don't want to remain (or want anyone else to remain) ignorant about this. This is a broad and bad issue that she be addressed with solutions.
That question in itself wasn't even supposed to be as serious, but still.
haha I knew you people would respond with that .
No but seriously, I want a serious response
I would be banned if i sincerely answered that,
I would be banned if i sincerely answered that,
how come?
Is this breaking the rules or something? Cause if so then I'm sorry
how come?
Is this breaking the rules or something? Cause if so then I'm sorry
Don't worry about it darling. Have a kiss 3
haha I knew you people would respond with that .
No but seriously, I want a serious response. A lot of people, including me, tend to not fully understand this. Answers like these don't really help. All I want is a legit answer. I don't want to remain (or want anyone else to remain) ignorant about this. This is a broad and bad issue that she be addressed with solutions.
That question in itself wasn't even supposed to be as serious, but still.
My post was in response to you, I just didn't quote.
Well, it's the same thing as Momo did with Nami but Tumblr approves it.
Well, is it different because female breasts are closer to sexual organs than abs?
@Monkey:
Objectification isn't about the action, it's about the context.
That seems to make sense. But I just get confused, cause some people can show examples without it needing that much context, and yet they can be the most convincing cases of it.