I'm going to get it for this...but it's never stopped me before  

CeriosEros 35M
738 posts
9/24/2017 11:16 pm

Last Read:
10/2/2017 1:10 am

I'm going to get it for this...but it's never stopped me before


Sexual objectification is Total bullshit! The concept not the action. We all sexually objectify, it's part and parcel of having our sexual needs but objectification is dumb. Hear me out. First I got to pay my respects to the person who came up with this. It's just vague enough to seem intellectual but relatable enough to be taken seriously. You can hate the player but you can't hate the game. It is brilliant. Every woman knows that feeling of being stared at by a creepy guy and getting that uncomfortable or threatened feeling. What the idea of sexual objectification does is tell women that feeling is threatening which is the relatable part bouns points for validation of feelings and it will harm them in ways ranging from low self esteem and not being taken seriously at work to domestic violence and that word that mean sex without consent that Meelp won't let me write (I learned my lesson from the last time ) that's the vague part.

With all the studies on sexuality none has been able to comfim that sexual objectification actually exists.Not from a reputable source and the ones that do don't have any scientific basis and use circular logic because sexual objectification is just sexual attraction. No one finds someone sexually attractive and views them as the complex human being they are. How good would they be in bed? Thd idea of sexual objectification is weaponized sexual attraction meant to shame people for something they can't control. Well...it's meant to shame men. Women can watch magic Mike and enjoy sexually objectifying Channing Tatum all they want. No one's going to look down on you for not seeing him as a complex human being. Could you imagine how weird that would be if you did. "Look at Channing's body! LOOK at the way he moves his hips! I HOPE HE HAS A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS FATHER!!! WHOO, TAKE IT OFF!!! ALSO WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR HOBBIES!!!!!!!!!

CeriosEros 35M
644 posts
9/24/2017 11:37 pm

I realize that the act that Meelp won't let me write the name of could be a basis for the threatening feeling that women feel when they receive unwanted sexual attention if it goes off the rails but the way sexual objectification is used in the majority of cases is what I'm discussing here. Which is why I made a point of saying that the concept not the act is bullshit.


Readmoreofeveryt 47F

9/25/2017 12:27 am

If we like being watched and turning others on we like being a sexual object sometimes but we don't like rude and disrespectful people whistling as we walk down the street or grabbing our asses or treating us like we are good for nothing but sex! I don't mind being stared at. Use to it. When they get in my space without permission that pisses me off. No one is just entitled to touch me unless I say!


BiggLala 48F  
28222 posts
9/25/2017 7:48 am

No one finds someone sexually attractive and views them as the complex human being they are.
-I disagree with this statement because it's not factual. I think it unreasonable to proclaim 'no one' when you haven't met--and known--everyone, i.e. each person on the planet. It's better to state, I've never known anyone who finds someone sexually attractive and views them as the complex human being they are. This is, of course, your perception based on your experiences.

That said, this is probably an example of chicken or the egg. By definition 'objectification' is 'the act of...' and the concept probably formed from there. How does that make the concept any less valid when it [occasionally, often?] results in action?

Need a way to message ALL members?...click here for helpful instructions in setting up a private messaging blog post.


CeriosEros 35M
644 posts
9/25/2017 12:32 pm

    Quoting Crystal_Lake:
    They did studies on collared business shirts too; probably the same mob. They found out collared shirts have never existed.
I see what you did there­čśćbut unlike collard shirts sexual objectification is a concept and you judge a concept on its validity which can be studied. At best it's like a kid that's afraid of monster. Is it a fear, Yes. Can it be studied, Yes. Is it valid ,no. Why because it was looked into and it was found that there are no such thing as monsters. The feeling that a monster will jump out the closet and get you is still there but the fear has no valid cause for concern. With sexual objectification the same rules apply. Except for the industry set up to keep women afraid. So the fear is validated instead of worked though and put in a more realistic light.


CeriosEros 35M
644 posts
9/25/2017 1:01 pm

    Quoting Readmoreofeveryt:
    If we like being watched and turning others on we like being a sexual object sometimes but we don't like rude and disrespectful people whistling as we walk down the street or grabbing our asses or treating us like we are good for nothing but sex! I don't mind being stared at. Use to it. When they get in my space without permission that pisses me off. No one is just entitled to touch me unless I say!
Whistling at women as they walk down the, Grabbing a woman's ass, treating women like their only good for sex, getting in a woman's space . Those all have different teems and concepts and happen on a individual basis. The vast majority of men you will encounter never engage in these types of behaviours. On the other hand all men engage in sexual objectification by it's current definition. And to equate malice with a behavior is almost ubiquitous is dishonest. It is so vague a concept it can be used with any sexual expression of men or any display of sexuality towards men from women. Like if a man looks at a picture of a woman in a tight dress looking at the camera suggestively in a men's magazine. They both are guilty of sexual objectification. Him for thinking about sex with her and not considering her as a complex person beforehand but also she is objectifying herself for not displaying herself as a complex human being. If something is so vague a concept it's usually bullshit.


CeriosEros 35M
644 posts
9/26/2017 10:21 pm

    Quoting BiggLala:
    No one finds someone sexually attractive and views them as the complex human being they are.
    -I disagree with this statement because it's not factual. I think it unreasonable to proclaim 'no one' when you haven't met--and known--everyone, i.e. each person on the planet. It's better to state, I've never known anyone who finds someone sexually attractive and views them as the complex human being they are. This is, of course, your perception based on your experiences.

    That said, this is probably an example of chicken or the egg. By definition 'objectification' is 'the act of...' and the concept probably formed from there. How does that make the concept any less valid when it [occasionally, often?] results in action?
I was speaking in general like saying that humans are mammals so we all have hair. Of course there's millions of people worldwide with alopecia who don't know any hair but 99 percent of people do. It's not based on my own preferences but in a overall rule but there's also exceptions.

As for the difference between act and concepts maybe I should be more clear. Act is the thing while concept explains the thing. In the case of sexual objectification the act is the feeling of being seen only as a sexual being while the concept is your only seen as a sexual being so you must not see them as a person. And I ding see any evidence of that.


BiggLala 48F  
28222 posts
9/27/2017 2:16 pm

    Quoting CeriosEros:
    I was speaking in general like saying that humans are mammals so we all have hair. Of course there's millions of people worldwide with alopecia who don't know any hair but 99 percent of people do. It's not based on my own preferences but in a overall rule but there's also exceptions.

    As for the difference between act and concepts maybe I should be more clear. Act is the thing while concept explains the thing. In the case of sexual objectification the act is the feeling of being seen only as a sexual being while the concept is your only seen as a sexual being so you must not see them as a person. And I ding see any evidence of that.
I was speaking in general like saying that humans are mammals so we all have hair. Of course there's millions of people worldwide with alopecia who don't know any hair but 99 percent of people do. It's not based on my own preferences but in a overall rule but there's also exceptions.
-This is comparing apples to oranges. Saying that "...humans are mammals so we all have hair," is making a factual statement. The statement I quoted is your opinion/perception, based on your experiences (I did not say preferences), stated as fact. Even for the person with alopecia which is a disease that, IIRC, develops after a person is born. They had hair until it fell out, so the biological fact remains true. Additionally, some people develop the condition on a transient basis where their hair eventually grows back. Oddly, I speak from experience on this as I've known two people with alopecia; one permanent and one temporary. But hairless people aren't the point here, lol. Anyway....

In the case of sexual objectification the act is the feeling of being seen only as a sexual being while the concept is your only seen as a sexual being so you must not see them as a person.
-This sounds like a circular argument or you're going against your OP. You now say, "...the act is the feeling of being seen only as a sexual being..." How can a feeling be an 'act'? Act, by definition is behavior, action, doing...as noted before...'the act of'. If I see a man who I feel like I want to grab his ass, am I objectifying him? By your initial post, no because I didn't grab his ass. However, now you'd say yes if I just felt like grabbing his ass. OR if he wore tight jeans, which would probably inspire feelings in some men and women to gtab his ass, he's objectifying himself. Yet, how do we know he intended those reactions, that that was his motivation for wearing those jeans?

Also, can you clarify this, "...while the concept is your only seen as a sexual being so you must not see them as a person". I think you've confused your usage of 'you/your/them'. Even by what I think you meant here, this is still feeling, perception, how someone views another person...basically a person projecting their thoughts onto another person.

Hmmmm....I think this brings me back to my original question: How does that make the concept any less valid when it [occasionally, often?] results in action? (in questioning where you say the concept is bullshit, or perhaps this is me not understanding what you mean by 'this concept is bullshit' )

Need a way to message ALL members?...click here for helpful instructions in setting up a private messaging blog post.


CeriosEros 35M
644 posts
9/27/2017 10:53 pm

    Quoting BiggLala:
    I was speaking in general like saying that humans are mammals so we all have hair. Of course there's millions of people worldwide with alopecia who don't know any hair but 99 percent of people do. It's not based on my own preferences but in a overall rule but there's also exceptions.
    -This is comparing apples to oranges. Saying that "...humans are mammals so we all have hair," is making a factual statement. The statement I quoted is your opinion/perception, based on your experiences (I did not say preferences), stated as fact. Even for the person with alopecia which is a disease that, IIRC, develops after a person is born. They had hair until it fell out, so the biological fact remains true. Additionally, some people develop the condition on a transient basis where their hair eventually grows back. Oddly, I speak from experience on this as I've known two people with alopecia; one permanent and one temporary. But hairless people aren't the point here, lol. Anyway....

    In the case of sexual objectification the act is the feeling of being seen only as a sexual being while the concept is your only seen as a sexual being so you must not see them as a person.
    -This sounds like a circular argument or you're going against your OP. You now say, "...the act is the feeling of being seen only as a sexual being..." How can a feeling be an 'act'? Act, by definition is behavior, action, doing...as noted before...'the act of'. If I see a man who I feel like I want to grab his ass, am I objectifying him? By your initial post, no because I didn't grab his ass. However, now you'd say yes if I just felt like grabbing his ass. OR if he wore tight jeans, which would probably inspire feelings in some men and women to gtab his ass, he's objectifying himself. Yet, how do we know he intended those reactions, that that was his motivation for wearing those jeans?

    Also, can you clarify this, "...while the concept is your only seen as a sexual being so you must not see them as a person". I think you've confused your usage of 'you/your/them'. Even by what I think you meant here, this is still feeling, perception, how someone views another person...basically a person projecting their thoughts onto another person.

    Hmmmm....I think this brings me back to my original question: How does that make the concept any less valid when it [occasionally, often?] results in action? (in questioning where you say the concept is bullshit, or perhaps this is me not understanding what you mean by 'this concept is bullshit' )
You're playing with words to make your point and not considering my logic. Sexual objectification the act is like making someone uncomfortable. I call it an act because it is triggered by someone else's actions and can or cannot be intentional. It's subjective bit it is a response. Sexual objectification the concept takes the act and subscribes malice to it not only to the acts that make individuals uncomfortable but to acts that are consensual or desired.


BiggLala 48F  
28222 posts
9/28/2017 9:32 am

    Quoting CeriosEros:
    You're playing with words to make your point and not considering my logic. Sexual objectification the act is like making someone uncomfortable. I call it an act because it is triggered by someone else's actions and can or cannot be intentional. It's subjective bit it is a response. Sexual objectification the concept takes the act and subscribes malice to it not only to the acts that make individuals uncomfortable but to acts that are consensual or desired.
You're playing with words to make your point and not considering my logic.
-Quite the contrary. I'm trying to understand your logic so that I CAN consider your point of view. However, it seems we're at an impasse, so I'll thank you for the discourse and take me leave.

Take care.

Need a way to message ALL members?...click here for helpful instructions in setting up a private messaging blog post.


CeriosEros 35M
644 posts
9/28/2017 9:25 pm

    Quoting BiggLala:
    You're playing with words to make your point and not considering my logic.
    -Quite the contrary. I'm trying to understand your logic so that I CAN consider your point of view. However, it seems we're at an impasse, so I'll thank you for the discourse and take me leave.

    Take care.
Ok one last attempt to be understood.

Act: Watching TV

Concept: Watching TV rots your brain

Act: seeing someone you're sexual attracted to and not seeing them as a complex person initially.

Concept: seeing someone you're sexually attracted to and not seeing them as a complex person initially leads to everything from eating disorders to non consensual sex. There is no evidence that this is the case also there have been other places in society that have been blamed for it. Like the beauty industry and porn. It's is so vague with so many holes it can't be taken seriously but it is taken as a great evil.


Become a member to create a blog