Unrealistic Beauty Standards/Objectification/Sexualization: What defines it?

[benjamminbrown]

@Shipmate:

One of the reasons why I discussed physical strength and appearance first was because, well, their outward nature have a certainly kind of cultural relevance that things like genetics don't. The idea of masculinity/femininity appeared before people were aware of the concept of genetics. So I was only examining how those outward characteristics might have impacted our cultural impressions.

And that's totally reasonable. I won't fault you for that.

I guess what bothers me is when people assign more "physicality" to outward appearances than more internal things like thought. IMHO, human thought is a product of the physical processes inside the body just as much as outward appearance is.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

So, ultimately, I guess I'm saying that it's possible that genetics also impact our very thought processes, making men and women (and those who identify as one or the other or neither) much more fundamentally, physically different than most people might first guess.

[Shipmate]

@benjamminbrown:

I guess what bothers me is when people assign more "physicality" to outward appearances than internal processes like thought. IMHO, human thought is a product of the physical processes inside the body just as much as outward appearance is.

So, ultimately, I guess I'm saying that it's possible that genetics also impact our very thought processes, making men and women (and those who identify as one or the other or neither) much more fundamentally, physically different than most people might first guess.

I also subscribe to those ideas, as a naturalist/physicalist myself. My naturalism is more ontological than methodological, though.

[benjamminbrown]

^ But how can you prove something works a certain way without first discerning the method? Hmm?

[Shipmate]

It's worth noting that our brains are also socialized brains, though. The neural connections that the brain developed during the process of socialization must be taken into account.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@benjamminbrown:

^ But how can you prove something works a certain way without first discerning the method? Hmm?

That's another topic, isn't it? I wish we have a thread for metaphysics.

[benjamminbrown]

@Shipmate:

It's worth noting that our brains are also socialized brains, though. The neural connections that the brain developed during the process of socialization must be taken into account.

Yes, surely genetics is not everything. I'm just saying that it's more likely than not the root of all human behavior. Only so much can be learned, and one might argue that even observing/learning is something that is built into us from the bottom up, something that originates in our very physicality itself.

[Outerspec]

@Shipmate:

Some thought experiments can serve to examine our intuition: Imagine a woman who looks exactly like Schwarzenegger at his peak, or Raoh from Fist of North Star, save for her genital. Would anyone describe her look as “feminine”? Even if a straight male is raised in the forest and has never come in contact with women, would he be more physically attracted toward the aforementioned woman, rather than, say, Emma Watson?

I want to examine this part more because I find this a very interesting thought experiment, but I do have a problem with it which I'll get to later.

If we're talking purely genetics and natural instinct playing the role in what body type this heterosexual male will prefer when he has never encountered a woman (or man?) before, then I think it'd be the one with the features that best ennunciate fertility. Let's not kid ourselves. Humans have very basic instincts and first and foremost is our own survival. Not of our own species but our own individual selves. Eat, drink, and whatever else you need to do to achieve the most basic levels of "living" is our instinctive priority. Then after that it's survival/continuation of the species aka procreation. I know we can also have sex solely for pleasure but the pleasure itself is just a biological tool to encourage more sex increasing the chances of…well, more babies. Our second strongest instinct after survival is to have sex and create little people.[Hide]Side Note: I just thought of all the mothers and fathers who would risk their lives to protect their children. Is that them overcoming their self-survival instinct or is it in fact instinctive of them to protect their offspring at the cost of their own lives?[/hide]Anyway, I'm not exactly sure which one the man would likely pick but I'm inclined to say the Emma Watson type figure. Studies have shown that men are more naturally attracted to a certain figure of women more than others. Women with curves, bigger breasts, and long hair. I don't believe a woman of Arnold's physique (in his prime) would fit all those descriptions even if you add the long hair. Emma Watson might not be the curviest of women but she does it better than Arnold. I know that men of today find a much needed and healthy variety of women attractive and a social upbringing in a diverse society encourages that in small and big ways. A man without that social upringing though would just go with his instincts.

Which brings me to my next point of why he might choose the Emma Watson type figure. A woman of Arnold's physical appearance might be seen as a threat to this man. Why would he want to try and mate with someone who can overpower him and push him around physically? In this man's world survival is everything and growing up alone, presumably in the wild, has taught him strength can mean the difference between life and death. He could see this stronger person as more of a threat than a mating partner. Wheras the Emma Watson type figure poses less of a threat. I think this brings up an interesting relation to the current mindset of the male population. I think men feel threatened and intimidated by physically stronger women, so they're less attracted to women of that physique. That, and today's definition of "masculinity" and "femininity" would put that type of figure in the "too masculine" category for most men.

Now, the problem I have with this thought experiment though is it's too confining as it leaves out so many factors. For all we know he actually might prefer the Arnold figure because of her physical appearance. He could feel a greater attraction to her because having a strong looking mate is better for survival. As you and Benjamin have gone over already genetics isn't everything. This thought experiment focuses solely on physical appearance and leaves out other factors that might play a role in shaping his attraction to either woman. Like, does he even try to communicate with them? I know the purpose of the thought experimemt is to focus on the physical and only the pshysical but it just throws the whole discussion of "masculinity" and "femininity" off for me because they encompass so much for than that.

For all we know he just might bash one of them over the head with a rock and dry hump their leg. Also…

[Hide]

[ShinigamiKing]

@taBills:

Also it's almost expected for guys to fuck a lot of women. If you can get a bunch of women, that's desirable. That's men flaunting their sexuality.

For women, being a virgin is desirable. Sleeping around or even looking sexy, people call you a slut. People say you are 'asking for it' if you get sexually assaulted.

I would have thought you might have learned what 'sex object' means by now, I've explained it like 3 goddamn times.

I haven't always had time to read every post in this thread though. Sorry about that question. I also didn't even phrase it well. But yeah, it was dumb in general.

Part of why said that they are less insecure in regards to that though is also because of other forums I've been on, where I see girls mention that they've done similar things at parties, but I never see that with guys.

I assume that it's more of a societal thing: because women are reduced to sex objects the please men, they should do things that men find hot; such as kissing other women.

[King Cannon]

@ShinigamiKing:

I haven't always had time to read every post in this thread though. Sorry about that question. I also didn't even phrase it well. But yeah, it was dumb in general.

Part of why said that they are less insecure in regards to that though is also because of other forums I've been on, where I see girls mention that they've done similar things at parties, but I never see that with guys.

I assume that it's more of a societal thing: because women are reduced to sex objects the please men, they should do things that men find hot; such as kissing other women.

Women are less likely to be criticized by other women for doing stuff like that.

Same can't be said for men.

Of course, this also falls into social expectations.

[Shipmate]

@Outerspec:

[Hide]Side Note: I just thought of all the mothers and fathers who would risk their lives to protect their children. Is that them overcoming their self-survival instinct or is it in fact instinctive of them to protect their offspring at the cost of their own lives?[/Hide]

As far as I know, to sacrifice oneself for one's kin is also an instinct. The genes are ruthless propagators of themselves and our individual well-being are not exactly their top priority.
However, to spend some quality time together also serves to enhance the bond between parents and children, so it's not like a parent will always sacrifice for a child they don't raise. There are many other varieties, as our genetic structures and upbringing also vary.

This thought experiment focuses solely on physical appearance and leaves out other factors that might play a role in shaping his attraction to either woman. Like, does he even try to communicate with them? I know the purpose of the thought experiment is to focus on the physical and only the pshysical but it just throws the whole discussion of "masculinity" and "femininity" off for me because they encompass so much for than that.

The experiment focus on sexual attraction based on outward appearance, so let's focus on that and assume he only get to look at them. Getting sexually aroused from looking alone is by no mean rare.

Emma Watson might not be the curviest of women but she does it better than Arnold.

How about Marilyn Monroe? Scarlett Johansson?

For all we know he actually might prefer the Arnold figure because of her physical appearance. He could feel a greater attraction to her because having a strong looking mate is better for survival.

1. The question is about to whom he will be physically attracted. Sexual attraction is for the most part a reactive response, and not a product of deliberate rational decision. You go "Golly, that's one hot babe!", or, to quote the famed song poet Akon: "Damn that's a sexy bitch untz untz untz"; and not "This one looks like she could bear good children, therefore I shall be turned on by her", "Target shows sign of potential of being a strong partner. Might be advantageous for survival. Proceed to be get aroused. I repeat, proceed to get aroused". This instinct serves to lure us to unknowingly choose a partner with high probability of fertility.

2. Sexual attraction is often nothing like "I feel safer being with this person." It's "Ah! Look at those curves, those plump juice thigh!"

3. Even if a heterosexual male is a masochist, often he would still imagine his mistress as a voluptuous, conventionally sexy women. Even if the guy has muscle fetish, the women in his fantasy still retain some certain feminine characteristics. A casual stroll through some fetish sites is suffice to prove the point. Pretty sure Arnold's appearance has not one characteristic that would conventionally be called "feminine". So the Arnold-like woman would mostlikely be mistaken for a male. The argument goes to show that there are some certain very definite, recognizable distinctions between the so-called "masculine" and "feminine" appearances. Evolution has equipped us with the ability to distinguish male and female and thereby ensure our reproductive success.

For all we know he just might bash one of them over the head with a rock and dry hump their leg. Also…

Since this is not about choosing a partner to build a home with, he would still choose the one to whom he is more attracted to dry hump.

I know that men of today find a much needed and healthy variety of women attractive and a social upbringing in a diverse society encourages that in small and big ways. A man without that social upringing though would just go with his instincts.

Judging from our pop culture's image of a sexy woman, the famous sex symbols and so on, there seems to be not much difference between most of our heterosexual males and this uncivilized man in term of sexual taste. If beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, most human beholders are more alike than they are different.

@benjamminbrown:

I'd argue that it's genetics. We are all just big, squishy, chemical factories when you think about what we understand about our physical nature.

And doesn't this mean that we are all physical objects with an illusion of agency? Yay, equality!

[Monkey King]

What instinct causes human beings to argue big long word filled bullshit about how they're puppets to genes.

[Shipmate]

@benjamminbrown:

Yes, surely genetics is not everything. I'm just saying that it's more likely than not the root of all human behavior. Only so much can be learned, and one might argue that even observing/learning is something that is built into us from the bottom up, something that originates in our very physicality itself.

I don't know the exact extent of the influence of our genes and bottom-up causation on our behaviors. I do believe that we can to some extent override some of our primal instincts. (I'm pretty sexually neutral by practice). However, chance is this too is the enhancement of some already existing tendencies. Let's be as careful as we can.

Speaking of of objectification of women, no doubt socialization plays an important role in this harmful practice. However, it might be noted that some certain parts in many women's bodies stand out more than the rest and catch the eyes more quickly. If anything I guess this is also a factor rooted in some certain biology that contributes to the process of objectification.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/women-and-objectification_n_1701275.html

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Monkey:

What instinct causes human beings to argue big long word filled bullshit about how they're puppets to genes.

Ad hominem and strawman?

[Outerspec]

@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.

[taboo]

[benjamminbrown]

@Shipmate:

Evolution has equipped us with the ability to distinguish male and female and thereby ensure our reproductive success.

Yup. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I heard there was some recent research into this phenomenon in bugs. Apparently, they have lots of homosexual relations, but it is less likely that it is because they are gay, more likely they just can't tell the difference, anyway. LOL

@Shipmate:

And doesn't this mean that we are all physical objects with an illusion of agency? Yay, equality!

I don't know about it being an illusion. Couldn't everything be said to have some degree of agency? As much as it is capable of?

Could an electron that passes through a double slit simply be deciding where it wants to land, not actually choosing at "random"? What really is random, anyway?

[Chrissie]

[benjamminbrown]

@Monkey:

What instinct causes human beings to argue big long word filled bullshit about how they're puppets to genes.

I'm certainly not arguing that we're "puppets" to our genes. More that our basic behaviors are probably reflected if not rooted directly in our physical makeup. Kind of why all mammals (all animals, even?) seem to share so many common behaviors.

Hell, wasps can't even tell when they're sticking it in the right hole, but they still know how to build incredibly intricate homes for themselves. And that shit comes from genes alone.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Shipmate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/women-and-objectification_n_1701275.html

I think that this article is a good example of how our brains learn. The more we see something a certain way, the more comfortable we get with seeing it that way. Also, the more boring it is.

Isn't this how food preference is developed, too? The more you have of something, even something you find revolting, the more tolerable it becomes. Eventually, you might just develop a hankering for it.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

And, just to add to the topic a little more, there's plenty of evidence that attraction is influenced by genes. It's called Sexual Dimorphism.

It's not only limited to humans, and popular theories suggest that different species can develop from species that have this trait when mutations occur and new mates get chosen. So, our genes probably influence our attraction to each other, and over time the societal norms for attraction can probably even influence our genes as well.

See: Sexual Dimorphism in Humans

[Outerspec]

@Chrissie:

This was a very good video. A recommended watch.

[square]

@Chrissie:

!

I clicked on this purely because of the tits in the thumbnail.

Not even ashamed.

[Chrissie]

Sexual Objectification: Talking about only the sexual appeal of women or men according to their looks (personality and intelligence of the individual be damned). Which…. is kinda being done in this thread? I am sorry guys, but talking about the physical/chemical attraction men have towards certain type of women and not towards others (i.e extremely muscled women), is objectifying both women and men as it completely ignores the factor of their personalities and behaviors that definitely contribute to who they are attracted to and why big time!

You want to stop the objectification of women? Start also discussing the objectification of men. Because it is already a wild-spread phenomenon that is being overlooked in here. So really what you really should be discussing is the objectification of human beings. Why is it done and from whom? How long has it being going on? I think we can all agree that one of the main reasons it's being done this time and age, is consumerism because frankly what sells/appeals better than sex in a society where sex has been turned into a casual, fun thing that everyone needs to do to in order to fit the social norm? Also another point that should be discussed (even though it's not fully on topic), is who sets down the beauty standards and specific gender roles and behaviors in every century and society and why do they differ? What do they serve? Not to mention there are as many types of objectification as there are societies. So is it something that can be stopped or is it actually a constantly evolving behavior, that can't be stopped and will simply continue to exist and change as long as human society does so too? It's such a broad subject and it's pretty ironic that you boys are only concentrating on the "sexual objectification of women" since you are also subjects of objectification daily after all whether you realize it or not. xP It's not exactly something that takes into account whether you want it to happen to you or not, is it?

Now I am just gonna sloooowly walk out of this thread, ok? :ninja: Don't be offended if I do not join the discussion more as I know I don't stay focused or interested long enough in a specific subject. I personally enjoy giving people food for thought more than force-feeding them my own opinions anyways. :)

Also square, you are very square indeed I do wonder though if that thumbnail was chosen on purpose to provoke clicks as well as invite them.

[benjamminbrown]

@Chrissie:

So is it something that can be stopped or is it actually a constantly evolving behavior, that can't be stopped and will simply continue to exist and change as long as human society does so too? It's such a broad subject and it's pretty ironic that you boys are only concentrating on the "sexual objectification of women" since you are also subjects of objectification daily after all whether you realize it or not. xP It's not exactly something that takes into account whether you want it to happen to you or not, is it?

I'm arguing exactly this: Sexuality and physical attraction are just two components of sexual behavior that influence the reproductive success of the human race, perhaps all animal species with some capacity for basic thought, certainly at least some of those that show evidence of sexual dimorphism. These components are constantly in flux, always have been, always will be, and so there's probably no real need to be scared of them.

edit: And to your question of "what does it serve?", I'd say that there doesn't always have to be an outright purpose for things to be the way that they are. Sometimes it's just the motion of the ocean, baby.

One could say that the reason biodiversity exists is so that life will survive the next mass extinction. But maybe it's just diverse because of all of the damned radiation.

[Chrissie]

I think the main thing that changes, is objectification's use: Currently they are making money out of it and plenty of it. It has been also obviously been used in the past as a means of repressing humans be men or women. Just another tool in the toolbox of people who want power over others be it over just one person or more. :U

[taboo]

@Chrissie:

It's such a broad subject and it's pretty ironic that you boys are only concentrating on the "sexual objectification of women" since you are also subjects of objectification daily after all whether you realize it or not.

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?

[Chrissie]

@benjamminbrown:

edit: And to your question of "what does it serve?", I'd say that there doesn't always have to be an outright purpose for things to be the way that they are. Sometimes it's just the motion of the ocean, baby.

You are talking about gender roles and behaviors right? Because that's what I was talking about in that bit :3

[benjamminbrown]

I'm no expert, and I'm just throwing this out there, but wasn't one of the reasons Sex and the City was such a popular show was because it kind of reversed the male/female roles? The dudes were totally objectified in that show all the time.

You almost never get to learn Mr. Big's name.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched them all.

[taboo]

@benjamminbrown:

I'm no expert, and I'm just throwing this out there, but wasn't one of the reasons Sex and the City was such a popular show was because it kind of reversed the male/female roles? The dudes were totally objectified in that show all the time.

You almost never get to learn Mr. Big's name.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched them all.

Maybe! Idk haha I never had any interest in that show.

[benjamminbrown]

@Chrissie:

You are talking about gender roles and behaviors right? Because that's what I was talking about in that bit :3

Yup. I'm saying that they don't have to have a purpose. Sometimes animals just do shit that makes sense to only them. We're all a little crazy.

Personally, I think that people are probably pretty close to Bonobos in the way we naturally want to use sex in our society.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@taBills:

Maybe! Idk haha I never had any interest in that show.

LOL ya, pretty sure that I've seen a fan book about the show and there were entire pages devoted to characters named "20-something guy" and "Baby Talker", etc.

[Chrissie]

@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 was actually thinking of different types of objectification than sexuality (not there aren't women that solely consider the sex appeal of a man and we are certainly not that kind) when I was typing that. For example there is a woman that wants to rise in society right? If an old rich fart comes her way, she will marry him solely for his social status and pockets and not about who he is personally. So she is seeing him as a tool thus objectifying him in a way that is not sexual. Or say, there is a woman that knows she attracts a certain man and she knows she can use him for something like…moving her furniture out. Once she gets him to do what she wants, she just blocks his advances (or keeps using him). Shouldn't that also be considered a type of objectification?

Not all men look at women as walking pieces of sexy flesh and not all women care for the personalities of men when they check their bare chests out

[benjamminbrown]

I'm only thinking about your personality when I have my eyes locked at boob-level.

[Chrissie]

@benjamminbrown:

I'm no expert, and I'm just throwing this out there, but wasn't one of the reasons Sex and the City was such a popular show was because it kind of reversed the male/female roles? The dudes were totally objectified in that show all the time.

You almost never get to learn Mr. Big's name.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched them all.

I have watched a bit of that show because of peer-pressure! Was that the reason it was popular or because it was selling…well.. sex? Ahahahaha! I only remember that crazy blonde chick that had no inhibitions whatsoever!

[benjamminbrown]

^ Samantha is totally the best char of the series. By far.

The show was popular for a lot of reasons, but I hear that it is generally lauded as a good bit of work that most women really enjoy.

I liked it, too. It can be extremely emasculating and objectifying towards men as well, though. Which would bother me at times, for obvious (?) reasons.

[taboo]

@Chrissie:

I was actually thinking of different types of objectification than sexuality (not there aren't women that solely consider the sex appeal of a man and we are certainly not that kind) when I was typing that. For example there is a woman that wants to rise in society right? If an old rich fart comes her way, she will marry him solely for his social status and pockets and not about who he is personally. So she is seeing him as a tool thus objectifying him in a way that is not sexual. Or say, there is a woman that knows she attracts a certain man and she knows she can use him for something like…moving her furniture out. Once she gets him to do what she wants, she just blocks his advances (or keeps using him). Shouldn't that also be considered a type of objectification?

perhaps a mutual objectification in that case? normally in a money situation like that, the woman tends to be above average looking… Some of these cases seem to be almost transaction like in a way (pay for dinner, get sex. etc). none of it is really honorable imo, but in that case you could argue that people use other people all the time in even the smallest everyday situations. men use other men, women use women, and so on etc. being a one time doormat is one thing but when you reach a point of using tits to sell after shave (or perhaps the level of masculine objectification in Sex in the City), that's when it really gets out of hand.

Not all men look at women as walking pieces of sexy flesh and not all women care for the personalities of men when they check their bare chests out

I dont think anybody here is arguing that, just trying to identify the boundaries of what is and isnt objectification. : )

[Chrissie]

@taBills:

perhaps a mutual objectification in that case? normally in a money situation like that, the woman tends to be above average looking… Some of these cases seem to be almost transaction like in a way (pay for dinner, get sex. etc). none of it is really honorable imo, but in that case you could argue that people use other people all the time in even the smallest everyday situations. men use other men, women use women, and so on etc. being a one time doormat is one thing but when you reach a point of using tits to sell after shave (or perhaps the level of masculine objectification in Sex in the City), that's when it really gets out of hand.

I dont think anybody here is arguing that, just trying to identify the boundaries of what is and isnt objectification. : )

In the case then of women that for example… put up their sexy pictures on social sites, don't they do it because they get likes and comments and thus attention? That is a mutual objectification too then, since I really doubt they actually care about the individual that posts a "U HOT BABE" comment on their picture and just care to get as much attention as possible (which is something a lot of guys do too). So it's pretty much something both genders do, isn't it? o3o

[taboo]

@Chrissie:

In the case then of women that for example… put up their sexy pictures on social sites, don't they do it because they get likes and comments and thus attention? That is a mutual objectification too then, since I really doubt they actually care about the individual that posts a "U HOT BABE" comment on their picture and just care to get as much attention as possible (which is something a lot of guys do too). So it's pretty much something both genders do, isn't it? o3o

Is that objectification though? In an earlier post, I mentioned that intent is important. If a woman is beautiful and wants to show it, she has that right. She's not trying to sell anything besides herself, and even then tastefulness comes down to attire as well. Some women care about it and some dont. Some hate 'U HOT BABE' comments. Some women cover up their beauty and that's her right too. It's entirely case by case.

[benjamminbrown]

Hey, now this discussion is going somewhere.

So I think we're all beginning to see that it's all just a bunch of mishy-mashy-timey-wimey, stuff, right?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

I think that we all objectify everything around us to some degree. We don't have the capacity to consider the true feelings of everyone we observe or interact with in our lives, so we must reduce at least some of them to less than who they are. Otherwise, we'd all cause our positronic brains to seize up constantly with conflicts to our Three Laws.

But then you've got the post by Shipmate which shows how women's bodies are already compartmentalized (probably) because of how they appear in advertisements. So clearly we need to think about how our perception is influenced by those "above" us...?

[taboo]

@benjamminbrown:

Hey, now this discussion is going somewhere.

So I think we're all beginning to see that it's all just a bunch of mishy-mashy-timey-wimey, stuff, right?

haha

well I try to approach this topic as a woman artist trying to help male creators write/create decent women characters but it's interesting to talk about from time to time. the genetics, 'whys', gray areas are interesting to read about too but less applicable in daily social life i think

[Chrissie]

@taBills:

Is that objectification though? In an earlier post, I mentioned that intent is important. If a woman is beautiful and wants to show it, she has that right. She's not trying to sell anything besides herself, and even then tastefulness comes down to attire as well. Some women care about it and some dont. Some hate 'U HOT BABE' comments. Some women cover up their beauty and that's her right too. It's entirely case by case.

Oops. I didn't phrase that as I should've so my bad on that xD What I was trying to say is that it is if she is doing it solely with the intention of gathering likes and comments. Boys get their eye-candy and girls get their fame.

Basically it fully depends on how an individual sees another and what it comes down to, it's that one should take control of their own behaviors and thoughts and treat everybody equally. At the end of the day we all fart and poop.

[benjamminbrown]

^ Ew, that's gross, Chrissie. We don't want to hear about your BMs.

My dog has like 7 huge ones a day. I'm beginning to think that it isn't normal.

[Chrissie]

I do not think that is normal. What the hell do you feed the poor thing dude? D:

Wait… how is pooping and farting bad manners? They are natural needs! Buzz off! >:C

[benjamminbrown]

Why are all the pet owners in ads women? What's with that?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Chrissie:

I do not think that is normal. What the hell do you feed the poor thing dude? D:

OK, maybe I exaggerated a little, but he's a growing puppy. He eats healthy (I think).

We're taking him to the vet on Monday for his first appointment. He's probs fine, but I'll check with the vet about his diet!

[taboo]

@benjamminbrown:

But then you've got the post by Shipmate which shows how women's bodies are already compartmentalized (probably) because of how they appear in advertisements. So clearly we need to think about how our perception is influenced by those "above" us…?

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

[Chrissie]

"Healthy"

–- 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

I heard about that! Seriously wtf was wrong with them? -___-

[benjamminbrown]

@Chrissie:

Wait… how is pooping and farting bad manners? They are natural needs! Buzz off! >:C

Better out than in, I always say.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

I'll have you know that Sammy's puppy food is of the highest quality.

!

[Chrissie]

@benjamminbrown:

Better out than in, I always say.

Did you know, did you know? If you do not poop for days (because of intestinal obstruction) you might end up puking out your own feces. /shuts thread down and scars people for life with one sentence

[benjamminbrown]

Everyone knows about intero-rectogestion, right? That's olllllld news, Chrissie.

[Chrissie]

@benjamminbrown:

Everyone knows about intro-rectro digestion, right? That's olllllld news, Chrissie.

Awww :C B-but… maybe someone never thought about it and never looked it up? So I might've still scarred someone? Maybe? ;-;

[benjamminbrown]

@Chrissie:

Awww :C B-but… maybe someone never thought about it and never looked it up? So I might've still scarred someone? Maybe? ;-;

Don't people still watch South Park?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153512/intero-rectogestion

[Chrissie]

I completely forgot about that episode. Thanks for bringing up the repressed memory.

[benjamminbrown]

Chrissie doesn't like South Park?? D:

OT: I think that South Park does an excellent job of misrepresenting and making fun of both men and women equally. Mmkay?

[Chrissie]

I used to watch it and like it actually xD But some episodes scarred me for life! Now I just lost interest (it's a wonder OP still holds my interest actually)

[benjamminbrown]

Keep your inner child alive, Chrissie!

SP has lost a lot of its original steam, though. I'm betting that they're on their last season or so. New episodes are pretty few and far between.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@taBills:

haha

well I try to approach this topic as a woman artist trying to help male creators write/create decent women characters but it's interesting to talk about from time to time. the genetics, 'whys', gray areas are interesting to read about too but less applicable in daily social life i think

R. P. Feynman once said something along the lines of "the only 'interesting' questions to talk about are the ones that we don't or can't know the answers to". I believe that he was giving this as evidence for why most people dislike discussing hard science (because there's usually a right or wrong answer, or it's very easy to define what you don't or cannot know).

Me, I like to think of the unknowns in science as a lot more significant than what is known. So I speculate a lot… shocker!