It's just a really bad question. There might be a good question somewhere in there like a personal space prompt and is it more socially acceptable for a girl to break that space with a guy than it is for a guy to break that space with a girl. But i dunno if thats where you were going with this or if that question is like.. the best you can do.
Unrealistic Beauty Standards/Objectification/Sexualization: What defines it?
-
-
It's just a really bad question. There might be a good question somewhere in there like a personal space prompt and is it more socially acceptable for a girl to break that space with a guy than it is for a guy to break that space with a girl. But i dunno if thats where you were going with this or if that question is like.. the best you can do.
That's where I was going with half of it, the half was me wording it intentionally bad to make it look like a troll post.
But yes, that's actually a decent food for thought.
-
Well, is it different because female breasts are closer to sexual organs than abs?
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.
I'm just saying you're getting too fixated on actions. It's not the actions. It's the framing of it.
-
-
Well, is it different because female breasts are closer to sexual organs than abs?
Dude, if you don't know how important abs are as a sex organ, then you're not having sex right (this goes for men and women alike).
-
This post is deleted!
-
Well, I mean, it's kind of an ab workout, isn't it? Perhaps this belongs in the "Do You Even Lift?" thread.
P.S. Welcome to the forums!
-
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g161/prismal/Sostupid_zps5e5a3790.png
Dear god, i´ts like reading Bleach.
what's with your responses the last page and a half
-
This post is deleted!
-
but isn't the fact that abs aren't sexual organs explain why it more socially acceptable in media?
-
This post is deleted!
-
By what definition are breasts sexual organs.
-
The other day i brushed my arm against a lady Tata's. I hope i didn't get her pregnant.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Damp:
You mean to be shown on-screen? I mean yeah that's part of it, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about.
not shown on TV, but to be fondled, and for guys to be okay with it automatically
-
@Monkey:
By what definition are breasts sexual organs.
Well, they're sort of "secondary" sexual organs, if you will. You couldn't properly reproduce if you couldn't breast feed your baby (back in the day). But I guess that's what midwives were for, right?
But yeah, they're about as related to the act of sex and sexual reproduction as abs are, is what I'm saying. lol
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
not shown on TV, but to be fondled, and for guys to be okay with it automatically
Well, I wouldn't say that guys are against it at all. Many are definitely turned on by such a thing. I'd imagine that many women are turned on by seeing a good pair of abs get stroked, too.
But the point is that it's totally the context of the action that is most important.
-
@Damp:
Yeah I guess this thread is pretty dumb.
thanks
no but really, I don't want this to be some thread that ends up getting locked, I wanted new discussions on the overall topic, like in the first 9 pages or so. I'm probably stinking it up right now; I'm wording the questions weirdly and bringing in other stuff because I'm afraid of getting called out for not knowing something and for being given a petty, snarky remark, meanwhile I created this thread because I simply wanted to learn more about this - no, the further redefine the knowledge I have in this area. I already know what is or isn't objectification in general, but the issue is that I find people with combating viewpoints, and I want to figure out why.
also objectification wasn't supposed to be the only point of the thread
-
That's the point. THAT'S THE POINT. There is no shame in being ignorant about something or having the wrong idea in a subject. Hell, recognizing it is the first step to change that but trying to appear smart or twisting the words and views so they can support a world-View that you are too afraid to accept may be wrong, that's the problem. Be honest, sincere and if you think you may not be getting something. Well, just be honest and don't do…well, the questions you've been doing.
-
^^Maybe asking the questions is the problem. Hold off on trying to create the topics and let the thread evolve on its own. Let others bring up something to talk about. Let the dicussions flow and take what you can from them but don't be afraid to offer your input because the best learning method involves participation.
I'm not saying don't ask any questions of course. Just don't worry so much about what you're learning that you're continuously asking questions just to keep some sort of discussion going.
-
This post is deleted!
-
So then…I guess the question is why are women's breasts/nipples censored in popular media?
Even if that's not what you're trying to ask, I think an answer to this question would be good since I've always taken it for granted and never really thought about it much. -
Because a long time ago men decided they were sexual objects? That's a hard one but there are some cultures in the world where breast are just treated as mammary glands, tools for breast feeding, not jerk-off material. So it's not as though all men initially think of breast as sex objects. But we're raised in a culture that hides them in public and treats them as private objects. So even if you don't automatically see breast as sex objects you do get the idea that they're something you're not supposed to see and are not allowed to touch. I'm sure there is a psychological component to this where you are constantly reinforced with the idea that something is private and personal but also that it is something to be desired and you should want to have access to it.
But is that an entirely socially constructed idea? Beauty is a socially constructed idea. How much of your physical attraction to someone else is your own thinking and not just what has been hammered into you obviously or subliminally? How can you tell? Where does the line start to become clear if ever? These are not rhetorical questions, i think they're very much on topic. The idea that society as a whole may be acting on desires that they don't actually have but have learned to have might be the source of a lot of personal problems for a lot of people. How can you confront something like this. Or is this even the case at all? What the argument against it? I would like more than "i just like tits cause they're hot" or some derivative of that.
-
This post is deleted!
-
http://broadblogs.com/2010/11/04/men-aren%E2%80%99t-hard-wired-to-find-breasts-attractive/
@Taggerung:How much of your physical attraction to someone else is your own thinking and not just what has been hammered into you obviously or subliminally?
As I mentioned before, I am of the opinion that physical attraction for the most part is not the product of "thinking", i.e. of deliberate, rational consideration. It is rather the product of a mixture of biological urges and cultural assimilation, i.e. of under-conscious processes.
-
Such sexual empowerment
-
This totally does NOT distract from the character or objectify him in any manner. But he's totes my fave because wowza~
/defendant fangirl
-
@taBills:
Such sexual empowerment
Okay that's something I won't be able to get out of my head for days.
-
Okay that's something I won't be able to get out of my head for days.
It is kinda hot b:
-
-
what emoticon represents "b:"? I don't see it used much at all
Uh, Guy sticking out his tongue i guess?
-
Uh, Guy sticking out his tongue i guess?
Some feminist would say that's sexist because you assume an emoticon to be male by default. b:
-
Some feminist would say that's sexist because you assume an emoticon to be male by default. b:
Good for them. .
-
what exactly am i looking at?
-
Some feminist would say that's sexist because you assume an emoticon to be male by default. b:
Some onomastician would say you're being namist for assuming that guy is referring to gender and not nomenclature. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb;
-
-
-:–>-b: There, he has a penis now....uh, i guess?
@ShinigamiKing:shouldn't that be ":p" instead?
FUCK YOUR RULES.
-
-
You people are all assuming these characters refer to some kind of human emotion, excluding the possiblity that they're just random characters being typed for no reaso£a0&¥¥•ªπq]..;
-
but they are suppose to represent human emotion
-
but they are suppose to represent human emotion
Maybe in your exclusionist construction.
-
Or speciesist construction.
-
You people are all assuming these characters refer to some kind of human emotion, excluding the possiblity that they're just random characters being typed for no reaso£a0&¥¥•ªπq]..;
What, do you think the characters don't feel or organize or arrange themselves?. You Typographer speciesist. I bet you don't even let commas into your house. You sicken me.
-
-
You do realize this entire thread has basically become people toying around with you, right?
-
I genuinely tried to help.
-
twitter comments from both girls and guys saying Zac Effron was objectified. I've even seen people say this happens a lot, but it is relatively ignored.
and that leads to something interesting. Does it seem as if male objectification is more accepted? female objectification is called out for (and rightfully so) but this tends to happen a lot, but it is only now that we are seeing complaints rallied against it.
-
It's more "accepted" in the way that unless it's really extreme, a man's character won't be questioned for doing something like that. The second a woman does something like that it's suddenly her defining characteristic.
-
It's more "accepted" in the way that unless it's really extreme, a man's character won't be questioned for doing something like that. The second a woman does something like that it's suddenly her defining characteristic.
In fact, it's more accepted in both sides.
If a man is letting himself get groped, no guy complains, and no girl complains (some will like it)
a a girl is letting herself get groped, she will not only be slut-shamed, but there will be outrage from seeing guys touch girl even though the vice versa is okay apparently.
Of course, the historical context plays a factor. men have often controlled and objectified women much more, and a man raping a woman has been seen far more than vice versa, so seeing a man objectified doesn't seem as bad or as blatant.
But I notice that I've been seeing that situation play out a lot more recently, without any notice. What exactly is the difference? (unless I already answered it.)
-
I've been reading stuff about what girls likes lately, for educating myself more about them. One conclusion I made is that women don't even like penises, compared with how attracted males are generally(or I assume) to female parts. I read that many are even engrossed by it, which makes me wonder whenever there really is big difference in how different genders perceive sexuality, assuming that other males are also generally engrossed by seeing other man's parts. If I follow this notion then females would be just as attracted to female parts as males are to them, if it wasn't for fact that they're born with those parts themselves, which would be reason for slight differences. Did I understand it right?