Attraction is Objectification

[Volnotova]

Who gives a shit about morality?

Anyone who's not okay with theft, rape, murder, genocide, etc..

Wrong.

Anyone that believes that those things are not how we ought to live.

I am not okay with rape, yet that doesn't mean I label it as immoral.

I do not believe I am just or moral, or that how I live is how I ought to live or that my goals in life serve a greater good or are in line with the general purpose of life, the universe and everything.

My motives are selfish and so are my goals.

I lack moral restraints of any kind, however, that doesn't mean I feel comfortable with everything - it just means I don't go run around shouting that because of my gut-feelings everyone should label X as morally repulsive.

[Provosa]

It's all so wrong hahah... Something in our culture has people wanting to claim slips of nakedness as if it's forbidden. Treating it as taboo is why some of the male and female populations are sizing eachother up in a way that feels predatory...

Act on feelings naturally, apart from what any prescribed media or convention will tell you, and you may find yourself an agreeable person to both sexes, without fixations on attraction.

Now when it comes to love, each side presents a series of projections to the other (we do this to ourselves too when we believe that our hobbies, the vacations we took, our education, or sexuality defines who we are, whereas all of those things are minute). In love, those projections are hopefully dispelled as they come, and we treat another as if they were a nourishing and growing twin of ourself. In turn we experience ourself dual-subjectively which makes a rich experience. w00.

[Terruana]

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php

At last, proof of my ideas. No man should ever be attracted to a female body because it has the effect of objectification. Note, however, that females staring at male bodies does not produce the same effect.

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Just no. As everyone else has pretty much said already, your source doesn't say anything about attraction causing objectification. It simply says women feel more uncomfortable under a male gaze than a female one, and that men don't feel the same in reverse. Any other conclusions are CONJECTURE not FACT.

[Ovisterra]

Yes but that's just if the woman thinks she's being "looked at". That's not necessarily connected to attraction in every case. She could well misjudge the man's body language and assume he was attracted to her.

Secondly, it's hardly my fault that I'm biologically wired to like girls. I am. If this has, directly or indirectly, caused psychological harm to any girls in the past, I'm sorry, but the fact is that I can't make myself stop being attracted to them.

[The Halseyist Faction]

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php

At last, proof of my ideas. No man should ever be attracted to a female body because it has the effect of objectification. Note, however, that females staring at male bodies does not produce the same effect.

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Just no. As everyone else has pretty much said already, your source doesn't say anything about attraction causing objectification. It simply says women feel more uncomfortable under a male gaze than a female one, and that men don't feel the same in reverse. Any other conclusions are CONJECTURE not FACT.

Is it females are uncomfortable under a male gaze?
Or under a gaze of an individual with assumed sexual interest?

[The Congregationists]

It's all so wrong hahah... Something in our culture has people wanting to claim slips of nakedness as if it's forbidden. Treating it as taboo is why some of the male and female populations are sizing eachother up in a way that feels predatory...

Act on feelings naturally, apart from what any prescribed media or convention will tell you, and you may find yourself an agreeable person to both sexes, without fixations on attraction.

Now when it comes to love, each side presents a series of projections to the other (we do this to ourselves too when we believe that our hobbies, the vacations we took, our education, or sexuality defines who we are, whereas all of those things are minute). In love, those projections are hopefully dispelled as they come, and we treat another as if they were a nourishing and growing twin of ourself. In turn we experience ourself dual-subjectively which makes a rich experience. w00.

This is the best post in the entire thread so far. Well done.

[Terruana]

Just no. As everyone else has pretty much said already, your source doesn't say anything about attraction causing objectification. It simply says women feel more uncomfortable under a male gaze than a female one, and that men don't feel the same in reverse. Any other conclusions are CONJECTURE not FACT.

Is it females are uncomfortable under a male gaze?
Or under a gaze of an individual with assumed sexual interest?

Ah, yes, you're right. My bad.

[Tahar Joblis]

Actually, from what I can tell, the study didn't actually say that women were more uncomfortable... just that they didn't say as much.

There are some interesting details not particularly noted in the study. Men spent an average of 118 seconds - with a population standard deviation under 3 seconds - talking to other men when under the body condition. This is actually fairly remarkable; even if the difference in population means is not significant, the difference in population standard deviation and the fraction utilizing the whole time are necessarily distinct from the other cases.

This is a strong indicator that, contrary to the topline reductio, men are actually responding to the body condition; and the fact that the maximum time allotment for the introduction is in most cases less than the mean value + 1 population standard deviation strongly suggests that the study was structurally flawed, as the maximum talking time was insufficient to distinguish a gendered deviation for men, since, in other words, a very significant percentage of men used the entire time allotted in both conditions.

Also flying under the radar of the reductio is the fact that there was a very significant difference between women and men in another condition - the verbal only condition, which women nearly unanimously failed to dislike, but was fairly unpopular among men.

The claim that women don't respond to the body condition when dealing with other women is interesting, but not supported by the data. The data simply indicate that women use nearly the entire allotment in talking to other supposed women, with small differences that are statistically negligible possibly only because of the truncation rather than the condition (body, face, voice).

Let me underline that. Because of the methodology used in the study and the peculiarities of the data, the only cases that the study can actually claim definitive pairwise conclusions about the comparison of mean talking time, of the numerous possible combinatorial pairings, is this short list:

1.) Women speaking to men vs. women while having their body watched.
2.) Women speaking to men vs. women while having their face watched.
3.) Women speaking to men while having their face vs. body watched.
4.) Women speaking to men while having their face watched vs. voice only.
5.) Women speaking to men while having their body watched vs. voice only.
6.) Women vs. men speaking to men while having their body watched.
7.) Women vs. men speaking to men while having their face watched.

2 out of 12 conditions resolve to a level below the mean enough that we can talk about them. This is sad, because the discomfort differences suggest that if we allow more time, we should probably see some important distinctions between other conditions, and the differences seen in the remaining 10 conditions are suggestive and interesting but beyond the ability of the study to resolve with confidence - such as the fact that women seem to be just plain unwilling to talk as much to men even if they aren't on camera, or the odd re-ordering that appears in the data when women are talking to other women (which doesn't align with the reported discomfort rankings).

Boo for fucking up a perfectly serviceable study by not spending a little more time per participant. Two and a half or three minutes would have probably resolved a lot more. (Heck, we could tease out some statistically interesting ones just based on percentage that ran right to the time limit without hesitating, but do they present that data? Noooo....)

What we do see in the post-facto polling is interesting. An underemphasized difference - one less dramatic than women disliking voice a third as much as men - is that men are more uncomfortable with having their face watched, but the truncation doesn't allow us to be sure of whether or not this affects talking time in any significant fashion. It's frustrating to watch narrow-minded people do social science experiments, they never bother to look for what you want.

Anyway, rant about the inadequacy of the study's framework aside, there's another rather important question, and that is what do you do about it? Is the goal to increase the comfort that women have with being objectified? Make men more uncomfortable with their bodies? Exactly what should be done to stop women from silencing themselves around men?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php

At last, proof of my ideas. No man should ever be attracted to a female body because it has the effect of objectification. Note, however, that females staring at male bodies does not produce the same effect.

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Fine and well. Kindly leave the rest of us out of your views. I'll carry on 'objectifying' and enjoying being 'objectified' if I so choose. I will continue to enjoy the hell out of sex and pleasure and everything that goes with it, and carry on being an independent, reasoning woman who can quite easily function on her own without male support while very much enjoying male company, lacking any serious hangups about any of it. And I shall not care one whit that some people out there have ideas or opinions that try to pigeonhole me into some silly role, status, label, or any other effort to tell me what I am or how I ought to think or be.

You don't want to think about sex, desire, and gender in the same breath - then don't. But don't try telling the rest of us we're horrible, wrong, misguided, or brainwashed because we don't have any problems associating the concepts of pleasure and sexuality without them being harmful. Yes, it really is as simple as that.

[Norstal]

Who gives a shit about morality?

Anyone who's not okay with theft, rape, murder, genocide, etc..

We don't need morals to avoid that, seeing as how archaic Catholic morality made these things happened during the 1400s.

Like I said, no one has morals. People have logic, things they think are perfectly rational. Once you figure out why only you find these arguments you made are only rational to you, you'll see your mistakes.

[The-_Sicarii]

Anyone who's not okay with theft, rape, murder, genocide, etc..

We don't need morals to avoid that, seeing as how archaic Catholic morality made these things happened during the 1400s.

Like I said, no one has morals. People have logic, things they think are perfectly rational. Once you figure out why only you find these arguments you made are only rational to you, you'll see your mistakes.

The Crusades started sooner than that.

[The Halseyist Faction]

Anyone who's not okay with theft, rape, murder, genocide, etc..

We don't need morals to avoid that, seeing as how archaic Catholic morality made these things happened during the 1400s.

Like I said, no one has morals. People have logic, things they think are perfectly rational. Once you figure out why only you find these arguments you made are only rational to you, you'll see your mistakes.

Um...

I have morals? Speak for yourself?

[Norstal]

We don't need morals to avoid that, seeing as how archaic Catholic morality made these things happened during the 1400s.

Like I said, no one has morals. People have logic, things they think are perfectly rational. Once you figure out why only you find these arguments you made are only rational to you, you'll see your mistakes.

Um...

I have morals? Speak for yourself?

What's your morals? And how did you made your morals? Don't tell me there are universal morals because there aren't any; not everyone follows your rules.

The morals you made comes from your own rationalization from your viewpoints of the world. They're not morals, they're simply rationalization. They're logic. Logic that you forged yourself.

[Norstal]

The Crusades started sooner than that.

I was talking about Spanish colonization...

[Ovisterra]

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php

At last, proof of my ideas. No man should ever be attracted to a female body because it has the effect of objectification. Note, however, that females staring at male bodies does not produce the same effect.

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Fine and well. Kindly leave the rest of us out of your views. I'll carry on 'objectifying' and enjoying being 'objectified' if I so choose. I will continue to enjoy the hell out of sex and pleasure and everything that goes with it, and carry on being an independent, reasoning woman who can quite easily function on her own without male support while very much enjoying male company, lacking any serious hangups about any of it. And I shall not care one whit that some people out there have ideas or opinions that try to pigeonhole me into some silly role, status, label, or any other effort to tell me what I am or how I ought to think or be.

You don't want to think about sex, desire, and gender in the same breath - then don't. But don't try telling the rest of us we're horrible, wrong, misguided, or brainwashed because we don't have any problems associating the concepts of pleasure and sexuality without them being harmful. Yes, it really is as simple as that.

/thread

[The-_Sicarii]

The Crusades started sooner than that.

I was talking about Spanish colonization...

Colonization was not the only crime.

[Steel and Fire]

What annoys me about this thread is how proud the OP is of his psychological problems, bragging about how he has no friends and never wanks and cuts himself. It reminds me of the days when I would just sit at home eating sweets because Depression Being A Powerful Force Of Nature No Man Can Overcome OMG. Taking pleasure in one's fuckedupness because it gives you a kind of smug self-satisfaction that is the best you can do in the absence of an ability to feel genuine happiness.

I mean seriously. I'm just like you except I don't pretend my utter disgust with sex and penises is a sign of moral superiority. Get over yourself. If you really want to Never Make Mistakes Ever the first big mistake you should correct is getting overawed by your own mental problems instead of dealing with them and moving on with your life.

[The Halseyist Faction]

Um...

I have morals? Speak for yourself?

What's your morals? And how did you made your morals? Don't tell me there are universal morals because there aren't any; not everyone follows your rules.

The morals you made comes from your own rationalization from your viewpoints of the world. They're not morals, they're simply rationalization. They're logic. Logic that you forged yourself.

Nonsense. Utter tripe. Other words.

It would be rather difficult to explain the entirety of my moral code in a single forum post and I am not quite sure I would wish to share that much of myself with NSG. That said...

They are certainly not 'Rational' and logical. For example, I do not take advantage of certain people. When I easily could, when there is no danger of me being caught, when I want to. I do not do it because I believe it to be unethical, and part of a great set of things that I consider to be 'Immoral'. My own morals dictate that in my passage through life I do not do certain things.

It isn't logical. I would be both better off and happier if I went ahead and broke my morals. Indeed, regrettably, sometimes I do. But the vast majority of the time I refrain and I always try to do so. They are not logical, they are ethical.

Stalin, was logical. He was not however, terribly moral. (Or sane.)

[Norstal]

What's your morals? And how did you made your morals? Don't tell me there are universal morals because there aren't any; not everyone follows your rules.

The morals you made comes from your own rationalization from your viewpoints of the world. They're not morals, they're simply rationalization. They're logic. Logic that you forged yourself.

Nonsense. Utter tripe. Other words.

It would be rather difficult to explain the entirety of my moral code in a single forum post and I am not quite sure I would wish to share that much of myself with NSG. That said...

They are certainly not 'Rational' and logical. For example, I do not take advantage of certain people. When I easily could, when there is no danger of me being caught, when I want to. I do not do it because I believe it to be unethical, and part of a great set of things that I consider to be 'Immoral'. My own morals dictate that in my passage through life I do not do certain things.

It isn't logical. I would be both better off and happier if I went ahead and broke my morals. Indeed, regrettably, sometimes I do. But the vast majority of the time I refrain and I always try to do so. They are not logical, they are ethical.

No, it is logical because you know what the other person would feel and that you don't want to have the feeling yourself. It's called empathy, something that stems from logic. Your morals does have rational foundation, you just don't know it. Well, either that or you got indoctrinated, which that too is a form of forced logic onto another person by making all the other options seems illogical.

Can you honestly say that you'll follow your moral rules to the letter? Chances are you might change your morals as you grow up as you take in different viewpoints.

Stalin, was logical. He was not however, terribly moral. (Or sane.)

Yes, but like you, he dressed his logic through moral. "We must kill evil people. Kill these people because they're evil!".

After all, what FST did here and what he believes are what he calls moral. Do you call it moral? No, I mean, god I hope not or you're having the same problems as he does. But he says it's moral. It's the same thing you're saying. Your moral is what you call "morals" whilst I call it logic.

[The Congregationists]

Fine and well. Kindly leave the rest of us out of your views. I'll carry on 'objectifying' and enjoying being 'objectified' if I so choose. I will continue to enjoy the hell out of sex and pleasure and everything that goes with it,

Regrettable that you've chosen to internalize patriarchal, sexist attitudes. Despite the fact you enjoy these activities and all that goes with it, you are objectified and oppressed by them none the less. Perhaps even more so, since you are taking pleasure in your own oppression. You are clearly downtrodden and oppressed and need someone who knows better than you how to live your life to start living it on your behalf.

and carry on being an independent, reasoning woman who can quite easily function on her own without male support while very much enjoying male company, lacking any serious hangups about any of it. And I shall not care one whit that some people out there have ideas or opinions that try to pigeonhole me into some silly role, status, label, or any other effort to tell me what I am or how I ought to think or be.

Functioning on your own without male support and enjoying male company are completely mutually exclusive. Don't you know that by now?

You don't want to think about sex, desire, and gender in the same breath - then don't. But don't try telling the rest of us we're horrible, wrong, misguided, or brainwashed because we don't have any problems associating the concepts of pleasure and sexuality without them being harmful. Yes, it really is as simple as that.

Associating the concepts of pleasure and sexuality? Surely you jest?! "Sexual" must be associated with "harassment" "Objectification" and other such negative terms. So too must "marriage" and "date" be associated with "rape" and "spousal" with "abuse" and "violence." To think otherwise is to collude with your oppressors! You must indeed be called out as horrible, wrong, misguided and brainwashed by your moral, cultural and intellectual superiors until you grasp this.

[all of the above was sarcasm, btw. Take it at face value at your peril. If you laughed at it or at least shook your head, congratulations. In all seriousness, though, it is indicative of how either feminism, or at least some of its adherants, has gone WAY wrong, or some people have gone WAY off track in interpreting what feminism's actually supposed to be about.]

[Seibertron]

Still don't see how attraction is a bad thing, being that it is necessary to promulgate the human race.

Any outward manifestation of male attraction toward females appears to cause them psychological harm.

Its only harmful if it is acted upon, simply thinking an offensive action is not offensive unless the action is acted upon.
also tell this to them
http://www.kcci.com/r/29528191/detail.html

[The Halseyist Faction]

Nonsense. Utter tripe. Other words.

It would be rather difficult to explain the entirety of my moral code in a single forum post and I am not quite sure I would wish to share that much of myself with NSG. That said...

They are certainly not 'Rational' and logical. For example, I do not take advantage of certain people. When I easily could, when there is no danger of me being caught, when I want to. I do not do it because I believe it to be unethical, and part of a great set of things that I consider to be 'Immoral'. My own morals dictate that in my passage through life I do not do certain things.

It isn't logical. I would be both better off and happier if I went ahead and broke my morals. Indeed, regrettably, sometimes I do. But the vast majority of the time I refrain and I always try to do so. They are not logical, they are ethical.

No, it is logical because you know what the other person would feel and that you don't want to have the feeling yourself. It's called empathy, something that stems from logic. Your morals does have rational foundation, you just don't know it. Well, either that or you got indoctrinated, which that too is a form of forced logic onto another person by making all the other options seems illogical.

Can you honestly say that you'll follow your moral rules to the letter? Chances are you might change your morals as you grow up as you take in different viewpoints.

Stalin, was logical. He was not however, terribly moral. (Or sane.)

Yes, but like you, he dressed his logic through moral. "We must kill evil people. Kill these people because they're evil!".

After all, what FST did here and what he believes are what he calls moral. Do you call it moral? No, I mean, god I hope not or you're having the same problems as he does. But he says it's moral. It's the same thing you're saying. Your moral is what you call "morals" whilst I call it logic.

You can call whatever you like 'Logic' but that does not make it so. Emotions and logic are entirely different things, Empathy has nothing to do with logic. Indeed, it can lead to you endangering your own life and other such dire concenquences. Hardly logical!

I can honestly say I try to follow my rules to the letter. As I may have mentioned, sometimes I fail. I am human after all, I have been known to be selfish on occasion. As for it being due to empty and suffering guilt as a result of doing something to someone, that's hardly true. I'm quite intelligent enough to manipulate people and abuse them for my own ends without them realising what I am doing. Most people are if they put their mind to it.

If it does me no harm, and they don't realise it, then where is the logic in not doing it? There is none, aside from the fact I know, ethically it is wrong.

[Seibertron]

:D Biology doesn't care about moral systems.

That's my point.

P1. Objectification is wrong.
P2. Sex and relationships always involve some objectification.
C. Sex and relationships are immoral.

Why is objectification wrong? Why is it sometimes wrong?

[Seibertron]

I am not your therapist, but I feel like I must say that we're making a break through here.

Here's the thing: most people don't feel this way about sexual attraction. Just because you feel this way has no bearing on what others feel about the subject, and if you had ever thought to ask a woman about it, you'd never have gone on this road.

But instead, you've made a bad generalization about the whole human species based on what one person (you) feels about the subject. I don't think I need to explain to you why this kind of generalization is unsound.

Women are conditioned by society to put up with the embarrassment of being viewed sexually. Men are conditioned to think being viewed sexually is "awesome" because society tells us that we are ready for sex 24/7.

So? If they like being objectified then fine.

[The Congregationists]

Any outward manifestation of male attraction toward females appears to cause them psychological harm.

Its only harmful if it is acted upon, simply thinking an offensive action is not offensive unless the action is acted upon.
also tell this to them
http://www.kcci.com/r/29528191/detail.html

But even then, is it harmful? Depends on the action taken.