Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William769

(55,124 posts)
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:35 PM Jan 2012

Is the male ego so fragile that that some feel the need

To objectify women?

I may be a Gay man but I have to say I find women fascinating!

Here's a closely guarded secret: Women have more influence over men than they think. I think it's high time women put that to use.

To all the woman in my life, this one's for you.

121 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is the male ego so fragile that that some feel the need (Original Post) William769 Jan 2012 OP
I think we need to realize something about this species in general: originalpckelly Jan 2012 #1
In Western society, at least, a LOT has changed in the last 500 years Art_from_Ark Jan 2012 #19
Yes - Ms. Toad Jan 2012 #23
depends on the profession snooper2 Jan 2012 #66
Definitely - just pointing out that as far as we have come Ms. Toad Jan 2012 #73
and may we add to that impressive list the times that this happened. roguevalley Jan 2012 #58
K&R musette_sf Jan 2012 #2
You need to realize that men think with our wang-doodles. originalpckelly Jan 2012 #4
but we need to think with our wang-doodles because Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #14
I've noticed that but I find the quality of friendship with gay men higher than roguevalley Jan 2012 #59
Eh, we're gay men. Prism Jan 2012 #3
Yeah, I agree with him. originalpckelly Jan 2012 #5
The contrast of feminism vs. male homosexuality often interests me Prism Jan 2012 #9
I've never bought into the idea of objectification Major Nikon Jan 2012 #22
Sexual objectification involves dehumanizing someone and only seeing them Liquorice Jan 2012 #27
I understand what it's supposed to mean Major Nikon Jan 2012 #33
The arbitrary nature of it makes it difficult for me to square Prism Jan 2012 #86
You very eloquently summed up my point Major Nikon Jan 2012 #91
Another input from gay males Prism Jan 2012 #96
this is good. because i have thought a lot about this, trying to figure out seabeyond Jan 2012 #101
I feel like we're all "out there" more than we care to be these days Prism Jan 2012 #117
there you go. now you are talking, lol. seabeyond Jan 2012 #119
There's no question bad behavior is epidemic Major Nikon Jan 2012 #104
is it not men doing the objectifying? boston bean Jan 2012 #43
Apparently not exclusively Major Nikon Jan 2012 #46
Man on man objectification Prism Jan 2012 #87
I really wish more LGBT'ers would participate in these discussions. stevenleser Jan 2012 #80
And that's why objectification discussions fall strangely on my ears Prism Jan 2012 #85
good posts prism seabeyond Jan 2012 #88
I do wonder about the genesis of this though Prism Jan 2012 #95
but this is what is frustrating seabeyond Jan 2012 #98
A thought on sexual privilege Prism Jan 2012 #99
very good point. thanks. seabeyond Jan 2012 #100
Thanks for the discussion Prism Jan 2012 #118
this may stray off topic a bit but I just remembered one of the most roguevalley Jan 2012 #61
Another not-so-secret: arcane1 Jan 2012 #6
No woman would walk around wearing high heels, makeup, hair, implants, wonderbras, extensions, botox redqueen Jan 2012 #24
I'm not so sure about "only" Major Nikon Jan 2012 #26
*ding ding* we have a winner! arcane1 Jan 2012 #48
We may have the "power", but it's only as long as we have unlined faces, thin bodies, and perky Missy Vixen Jan 2012 #62
This heterosexual guy calls bullshit on one of your baseless claims: arcane1 Jan 2012 #64
of course it is not true. it is what you gender often presents and not many of you seabeyond Jan 2012 #67
Thanks, and agreed. arcane1 Jan 2012 #72
Ooh, that's amusing Missy Vixen Jan 2012 #68
It's baseless when you claim ALL men are like that arcane1 Jan 2012 #74
Missy, that just isn't fair. dawg Jan 2012 #105
Don't contradict a woman who is telling you what you think. It's impolite. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #78
Almost as impolite as a man who's never had anything good to say about females. n/t Missy Vixen Jan 2012 #113
Isn't "sugar daddy" the term for guys who date much younger women? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #70
I haven't heard that term as much as I've heard "cougar" spat out like an obscenity Missy Vixen Jan 2012 #71
I will at least grant you this much ... dawg Jan 2012 #106
Men vs. women Missy Vixen Jan 2012 #112
Thanks. dawg Jan 2012 #114
just pinch her ass.... she will let you know one way or another..... seabeyond Jan 2012 #116
You sound like you would make a wonderful husband. And I know someone who is looking. Too bad. JDPriestly Jan 2012 #7
I did make a wonderful husband (at least I like to think so). William769 Jan 2012 #8
i am sorry to hear that. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #13
LOL. Take it from me RZM Jan 2012 #10
the power is certainly there, it's almost embarassing Whisp Jan 2012 #29
That's nice William... one_voice Jan 2012 #11
myth; men are more visual. only bad comes using sex as a tool or weapon. i know i have influence seabeyond Jan 2012 #12
Depends on the dynamic of your relationship William769 Jan 2012 #15
i see. i would walk first. i get that is ok for some. but i couldnt do that. seabeyond Jan 2012 #16
All that study says is that women's brains SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #25
study says they respond the same as men, but they dont have a penis, so rest my case? seabeyond Jan 2012 #39
You are one mean woman... SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #52
yup. i am mean. mean mean mean. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #53
+1,000,000 Froward69 Jan 2012 #55
I didn't see anything that was "mean". dawg Jan 2012 #108
i had a poster seabeyond Jan 2012 #110
I suspect that there is some truth to the "men being more visual" thing. dawg Jan 2012 #107
ok with all that seabeyond Jan 2012 #109
myths and morality dawg Jan 2012 #111
and this is what i think, too, dawg. a security blanket which goes along y theory of fragile seabeyond Jan 2012 #115
Try "The First Sex" by Helen Fisher loyalsister Jan 2012 #36
not so much naturally more visual, ... conditioned to use visual indicators i seabeyond Jan 2012 #38
Evolution loyalsister Jan 2012 #51
love it. thanks. it is saying that from beginning of time women were created to have emotional sex seabeyond Jan 2012 #54
I am looking at adaptive responses rather than reflective assessments loyalsister Jan 2012 #60
ha.... enjoyed this very much seabeyond Jan 2012 #65
:) No problem enjoying this discussion loyalsister Jan 2012 #97
interesting. ya... seabeyond Jan 2012 #103
I had to LOL when I read this: stevenleser Jan 2012 #81
There was no mention of sexual orientation in my post as I was addressing male\female relations loyalsister Jan 2012 #82
absolutely. another good post. seabeyond Jan 2012 #89
I'm sure injecting pseudo-sociology and pseudo-science and ignoring the LGBT dimension stevenleser Jan 2012 #90
cause you are never fooled, lol. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #92
what exactly do you think should be addressed? loyalsister Jan 2012 #94
I don't know that it is ego fragility. Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #17
FWIW RZM Jan 2012 #30
Only one thing, ladies...in your power, please do not become what men have long done to you. Fire Walk With Me Jan 2012 #18
exactly. good for you. usin is usin, regardless. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #21
<3 October Jan 2012 #20
Can I be your fag hag? eridani Jan 2012 #28
Oh you little fruit fly libodem Jan 2012 #31
Try "queer dear." Behind the Aegis Jan 2012 #32
Yes, I like that eridani Jan 2012 #37
talkin bout glass houses and stones lol nt msongs Jan 2012 #34
Yes, I think some men do kimi Jan 2012 #35
that is what it feels like to me. that it is so wrapped up in male ego of their manhood that they seabeyond Jan 2012 #41
Stephen Hawking says that women are a mystery to him mainer Jan 2012 #40
ya. what a cute, stupid little saying that men like to use seabeyond Jan 2012 #42
I think both men and women have to initially rely on visual considerations lunatica Jan 2012 #44
Interesting question... MadrasT Jan 2012 #45
It's not just men objectifying women Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #47
Women like observing men, too. Missy Vixen Jan 2012 #63
I don't think there is a difference Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #76
IMO, the difference is respect; admiring someone is simply a passive act of observation. closeupready Jan 2012 #121
Were you here yesterday? DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #49
cause it is fun???? lol. seabeyond Jan 2012 #69
I hate when men objectify me. Still waiting on it to happen though... The Straight Story Jan 2012 #50
I like to be objectified... expect me to be the same as your dildo. Froward69 Jan 2012 #56
While I believe that there are indeed men with fragile egos. LanternWaste Jan 2012 #57
Proof that women never objectify men Zalatix Jan 2012 #75
+1 lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #79
"influence"? You're not telling them anything they don't already know. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #77
Oh dear....n/t ceile Jan 2012 #83
And what's important is that it not just influence over straight men but ALL men. . . BigDemVoter Jan 2012 #84
I love you! lonestarnot Jan 2012 #93
Yes, some male egos are. MoonRiver Jan 2012 #102
K&R - and yes, many men DO need to dehumanize women in order closeupready Jan 2012 #120

originalpckelly

(24,382 posts)
1. I think we need to realize something about this species in general:
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:38 PM
Jan 2012

The only thing that has changed in the last 500 years is the technology that we relate to one another with. Nothing else.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
19. In Western society, at least, a LOT has changed in the last 500 years
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:48 AM
Jan 2012

Women today...
...have access to all the educational opportunities that men have.
...are allowed to work at nearly every job that had previously been the exclusive domain of men.
...are no longer forced to quit their jobs if they become pregnant.
...are no longer considered the "property" of their husbands.
...are freer to set their own dress code.
...can freely choose their mates.
...can be protected by law from abusive spouses.


Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
23. Yes -
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:03 AM
Jan 2012

but as to the first two points - when I am with others in my profession the ratio of men to women is still around 9:1

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
73. Definitely - just pointing out that as far as we have come
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:36 PM
Jan 2012

there are still certain places we have a lot farther to go.

I could walk into a room full of engineers (mostly men), with pretty much any random male I grabbed off the street and all of the questions and interactions would be directed to the random male I dragged in.

The thing that has changed is that once I open my mouth, it now stops. I don't actually drag random males off the street, but often I am the half of the team that is more familiar with the project or subject matter - and I still always start out working against the presumption that the male with me knows everything and I know nothing.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
58. and may we add to that impressive list the times that this happened.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:05 PM
Jan 2012

Women were only allowed to enter many colleges including ivy league in the last 30 years.
When I graduated in the &%#% (actually not THAT long ago) I could be a nurse, secretary, teacher or mommy.
only lately could get their jobs back after having a baby
I will give you that one. Even if sometimes it feels like it.
I was allowed to wear pants back in *&%#. Not that long ago mind you.
true
unless the law is a dick and the judges too.

Thirty years as apposed to 10K years of civilization. Not bad.

musette_sf

(10,184 posts)
2. K&R
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:38 PM
Jan 2012

though I must say that in my own personal life experience, I have found that women have very little influence over men.

originalpckelly

(24,382 posts)
4. You need to realize that men think with our wang-doodles.
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:40 PM
Jan 2012

I say this as a gay dude, so maybe it is more that way for us, but come on...you don't think str8 guys are the same way? Women have to learn to use their power over men more effectively.

The thing that is interesting, I think, is that the plight of gay men is often tied to that of females, mainly because we are treated as women-light.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
14. but we need to think with our wang-doodles because
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:10 AM
Jan 2012

women keep F#@kig with our heads.



If they would isolate the F#@king to our wang-doodles we might be able to think with our heads for a change.

























Yes, this was an attempt at a joke. I am not serious in the least.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
59. I've noticed that but I find the quality of friendship with gay men higher than
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:07 PM
Jan 2012

that of most straights. (Unscientific survey with a plus/minus of 2 zillion %)

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
3. Eh, we're gay men.
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:38 PM
Jan 2012

William, you know gay men are just as bad - if not worse than straight men - when it comes to tunnel vision focusing on hotness. Hell, we built our entire subcultures around the different ideas of the kinds of men who turn us on.

Men are wired visually to zero in on physical traits for whatever reason.

The question isn't "Is the male ego so fragile that they need to objectify," the question is "Are males culturally raised to be so rude and self-absorbed as to see only physical traits as determinate of a person's worth?"

originalpckelly

(24,382 posts)
5. Yeah, I agree with him.
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:43 PM
Jan 2012

But because people are so afraid to be "effeminate" in any way, only gay guys go the farthest in this regard. It's almost an insult in our society to be a woman-like person, if you aren't. Women, it's not the same thing for them.

As I say above, the truth is that we are not so much of a different species, but that we are using different technologies.

Just my two cents.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
9. The contrast of feminism vs. male homosexuality often interests me
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:50 PM
Jan 2012

Because it shines a prism on male patterns of behavior. I've seen the recent threads on the male objectification of women, but from my own experiences, I'm not entirely convinced this is a male vs. female dynamic. The gay male community objectifies other men to absolutely absurd levels. Some areas of the gay male dating social scene are total, self-defeating trainwrecks because many men strive too hard finding that physically perfect partner.

So, the objectification conversations are interesting, because I'm still trying to figure out if this is purely a sociocultural construct, or is there male biology involved in the behavioral chain somewhere along the way.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
22. I've never bought into the idea of objectification
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:03 AM
Jan 2012

I think it's a silly idea. Objects aren't sexual. The whole idea of trying to turn a person into an object is equally as silly. Why would anyone want a person to be an object so they can have sex with it? As far as valuing someone for their physical appearance, is that really as wrong as some people suggest? A person is made up of both their mind and body. Some people go to great lengths to build and maintain their personal appearance just as some spend a great deal of time developing their mind. Is it really wrong to be attracted to someone on that basis alone? Really getting to know someone takes a bit of time, but evaluating them physically can be done in seconds.

Liquorice

(2,066 posts)
27. Sexual objectification involves dehumanizing someone and only seeing them
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:21 AM
Jan 2012

as an object for sexual gratification. It means not caring about the person's humanity or identity as a full human being.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
33. I understand what it's supposed to mean
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:21 AM
Jan 2012

I just can't get there from here. Again the question remains as to why anyone would want to turn someone into an object? If you look at this term from a literal aspect, it fails. In fact, it's an oxymoron. Not very many people prefer to have sex with objects. So somehow this term must imply something that's not literal. So the standard answer I get is that it's dehumanizing them. Hmmm, so why not say just that? Why invent another term that is less literal?

OK, so even if you go with the implicit meaning, I think the idea fails. I can't agree that just because someone wants to have sex with someone else solely based on their appearance that this somehow dehumanizes them. Not very many people prefer to have sex with something that's not human. What someone looks like is very much a part of their humanity. What makes someone a human is their body and their mind. If you want to value a person as a "full human being", what weight must you put on these two things? Is it 50/50? 80/20? 90/10? or even 100/0? is there an acceptable range and a non-acceptable range? and most importantly whichever you come up with, how do you make an ethical case for it?

Some people are extremely superficial. Are they really wrong just because a more reasonable alternative might be something else? I don't believe you can start to tell people how they should or should not think without answering some pretty hard questions of ethics. I don't think those questions have been adequately answered.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
86. The arbitrary nature of it makes it difficult for me to square
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:01 AM
Jan 2012

Where is the line being drawn between seeing someone and being attracted to them and treating them in an abhorrent manner? My problem is that the line exists wherever someone says it does based on their own sensibilities.

Heck, just now, I saw a very attractive individual on the street while I was gliding by at 20 mph on my bike. I glanced at them for a few moments, noticed their attractiveness, had a few fleeting sexual thoughts, and then continued merrily on my way.

Is that objectifying that person? Based on the working definition I see in these discussions, apparently it is. And apparently that's a very bad thing. But, I'm not understanding what is so wrong in entertaining and acknowledging sexual attraction. When I'm merely passing someone on the street, I suppose I could think "What an interesting person they must be!" Well, maybe, but that potential isn't what's turning my head, is it?

So, again, where is the line and why is it being drawn? There's no coherent answer.

I don't think the problem is men "objectifying" women. I think the problem is why too many men aren't culturally conditioned enough to not be jerks towards women.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
91. You very eloquently summed up my point
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:52 AM
Jan 2012

Certainly the line exists somewhere, but that line doesn't have to be the same for everyone in every circumstance as some would have you believe. Some people want to be "objectified", and some don't. Some people want to "objectify" someone else and some don't. These personalities exist in both sexes. There's nothing wrong with any of them. The problem comes in when you start treating someone contrary to the way they want to be treated. If you are trying to "objectify" someone who doesn't want it, you're an asshole. It's that simple. The whole idea that somehow the media is turning men into rapists and women into willing victims is just nutty. It insults the intelligence of anyone north of a room temperature IQ. Fortunately these ideas are starting to die a death that is long overdue. Modern feminism is trending towards much more substantive issues.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
96. Another input from gay males
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:41 PM
Jan 2012

Some of them love to be objectified. There's an entire subculture and context in the gay male world where men actively seek to be objectified. A lot of these guys are getting off on it. Go by any gym in a gay neighborhood, and you'll see men walking out scantily clad after a work out, sauntering through the neighborhood knowing exactly the kind of reaction they're getting from other men and drawing pleasure from it.

But even beyond gay men, look at any sexual subculture, and you'll see people don sexual costume for the sole purpose of catering to superficial sexual snap judgements. The point of many of these subcultures is objectification as we understand the word. It's a voluntary, shared focus on surface characteristics.

A lot of people simply enjoy feeling sexy, and they derive pleasure from being perceived as sexy by other people. I think this is just a human impulse.

Our problem is, as you said, how do we stop people from treating people like a piece of meat when they're obviously not inviting that kind of reaction. It's almost as if, culturally, we have a problem with men interpreting context and acting appropriately.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
101. this is good. because i have thought a lot about this, trying to figure out
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:09 PM
Jan 2012

what exactly the issue is. when i was younger i enjoyed being noticed. and was just getting to know my sexuality. should be expected. i did not always go out to be noticed. when i wanted to, i dressed to be noticed. then i got older and i didnt want to play the game as much. i didnt "need" anothers approval on my sexuality.

really, once i got married, i wasnt interested at all having another validate my sexiness. my dress and my looks were just what a person does for self to walk out door.

now older, i resent the hell out of it. lol. just enough. my body isnt here for you to give a thumbs up or down to.

i am trying to figure this out myself.

i like to be fair. but it seems soooooo much anymore. all the time. even old. that is just wrong. something wrong.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
117. I feel like we're all "out there" more than we care to be these days
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 02:43 PM
Jan 2012

I haven't pieced together this idea in my mind entirely, but I do feel more exposed these days than I did as a teen or young adult. I vaguely feel this has to do with the evolving nature of our media, how we consume it, and how social networking has created a kind of cultural sense that our lives are not only accessible, but presented for the perusal and passing interest of others. As if how we consume social media online is wordlessly translating in subtle ways into how we're seeing people offline.

It's difficult to articulate.

Anything we do in public can be telegraphed to the wider world in the blink of an eye - and sometimes is. I have a few accounts on personal sites to keep in touch with friends and find new ones, and occasionally I'll get a message from a stranger saying "Oh hey, I saw you over at X doing Y. You were wearing the blue and white shirt . . ." And it's like, whoa, yeah, we're all being watched and taken note of. I'm sure we always were, but it was never quite put out there before as it is now. What was unconscious and largely unspoken has become overt and almost desirable in its way.

As a result of this, I'm more self-conscious. I dress better now, take better care of myself, cultivate a very specific physical appearance. I used to not care in the slightest, but once I realized people were interested and reflecting that back towards me, I responded and adjusted to it.

I think, more than ever, we're using social media to purposely or even inadvertently telegraph that idea that our lives and persons are now out there for the purpose of being consumed.

There's definitely a shift happening I can't quite put my finger on.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
119. there you go. now you are talking, lol.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 04:34 PM
Jan 2012

i can feel the difference and i keep trying to express it. but unless you get the feel, people are clueless what is being said.

i know it is connected to the whole online thing. good and bad. you explained it very well. one more peel off the onion.

maybe people who are into feeling and considering others and behavior, ect... notice it more. my hubby, who walks thru life without looking beyond, isnt a part of all that. i envy that. in ways. lol. but he has no interest in the "social" aspect of network so he is getting only the vast amounts of info he desires. i am into people. and wow, do you see them on the net.

interesting. something to think about.

you are smart. . thanks.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
104. There's no question bad behavior is epidemic
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:29 PM
Jan 2012

What is up for debate is why, and what should be done about it. As far as why goes, I'm not so sure it's fair to say that the images that are all around us are responsible for our behavior. Certainly they have influence to some degree, but I don't think that influence is a pervasive as some would suggest. As far as what should be done about it, I think the answer lies in teaching everyone, and particularly the young in how to control their emotions instead of trying to tell people what they should think. When you become a slave to your emotions, bad things tend to happen. Most of the bad behavior is caused by people who fail to control their emotions. I think that problem should be addressed directly rather than trying to change our entire culture and hope that bad behavior corrects itself somehow.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
46. Apparently not exclusively
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:05 AM
Jan 2012

If you buy into the idea of sexual objectification (I don't), you're faced with the troubling question as to why so many are active participants both on the sending and receiving end of this. Apparently the answer is if you're a female and you actively participate you are "self-objectifying" yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification#Female_self-objectification

It only get's nuttier from there.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
87. Man on man objectification
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:03 AM
Jan 2012

Which simply begs the question that perhaps this male behavior being cited isn't based on sexism. Maybe there's something else going on.

However, that doesn't mean sexism doesn't drive inappropriate expressions of this tendency.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
80. I really wish more LGBT'ers would participate in these discussions.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:05 PM
Jan 2012

It adds a dimension that is sorely missing in them.

The whole "its these mean men doing it to these poor women" is totally exploded when you add the LGBT dimension.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
85. And that's why objectification discussions fall strangely on my ears
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:54 AM
Jan 2012

Because not only do gay men tend to objectify to dizzying degrees, they often voluntarily internalize it themselves by actively self-identifying and segregating into social groups based almost entirely on superficial physical characteristics. Name just about any physical type or characteristic, and gay men have formed a cohesive social group based on it.

That's why I'm just a little wary of seeing male objectification driven solely by sexism. My own experiences with the LGBT community leave too many nagging suspicions that there is more going on to this component of male behavior. I think, in these objectification discussions and feminism, we're actually looking at effects and mistaking them for causes.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
88. good posts prism
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:16 AM
Jan 2012

and a life time of experiencing it myself, and you seeing it in your community, i often think about where that line is. there is a line. mostly in feel. i know it when i feel it. but, i think it is a difference from seeing a person as a human and seeing the person as a tool. and i think men are conditioned over a lifetime with the ability to see a person that is attractive or arousing in the part of the brain for tool/use. i read a study a while ago and i have since looked for it and cannot find it. but they took a picture of a woman clothed, or a friend or sister and the male brain was active in the part that has empathy and sees a person. they took pictures of women in bikini and the brain was active on the part of tool/use. non human. they followed up with questionaire and the man that answered questions in a misogynist manner tended to put the women in non human place more often

i think the feel becomes creepy when shifted to dehumanizing the person.

i can do it myself. i often interact in society with strangers. almost always. really friendly. i was on a trip walking a lot. i was getting it a lot and got tired of it. so i did it to a couple men. it really is a shift in the brain to be in use mode and i gotta tell you, the couple men i did it to reacted just like women do. break eye contact. look down.

anyway, i appreciate your conversation cause it made me think a little.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
95. I do wonder about the genesis of this though
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:25 PM
Jan 2012

I looked up the study you mentioned and found it and another one that were pretty interesting reads:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-our-brains-turn-women-into-objects

http://liberal-debutante.com/gender/feminism/science-shows-men-objectify-women.html

What I'd like to see are studies trying to understand the point of origin for the male tendency to do this. I think we may have a chicken-or-the-egg scenario on our hands. We have magazines and television shows that show women scantily clad, but here's the question. Are men's brains being wired this way by a culture portraying women a certain way? Or, are culture and marketing catering to an already existent disposition possessed by males? Nature, nurture, a bit of both?

Being gay, I can't say I grew up exposed to a culture that objectified men as readily as women, and I didn't really begin consuming gay culture until my early twenties (I'm 32 now). I still remember that Diet Coke Break commercial where the female office workers all rushed to the window to look at the shirtless construction worker. It was so unusual to portray women and men that way in our culture, it became a meme.

And yet, without having culture or marketing reinforcing my tendencies to see men as sexual objects, the impulse still exists in me as strongly as any heterosexual male's. I live and work around a major university in a college town that is crawling with attractive men. Every day, dozens of them sidle past on the street. My eyes follow those I'm attracted to, and fleeting sexual thoughts or simple vague notions of attraction flick through my brain constantly throughout the day. It is an utterly unconscious predisposition of my brain.

You know when you're walking and not thinking of anything in particular, and your brain is sort of wandering on its own, passively registering things without your conscious attention? That's when attractive vs. non-attractive is mostly taking place. The eyes seek out the people who hold the greatest sexual attraction, take in details, the mind registers various scenarios and brief fantasies, and then drops it once the individual is out of sight. This occurs with no conscious input from my waking mind, and it occurs less when my mind is in a less passive state.

This never happens with women in my brain. I never judge women physically in this same way.

But if I've not been culturally conditioned to treat men in this objectifying way, if I didn't grow up surrounded by people judging men's arms, chests, butts, abs, etc., where is it coming from? I have grown up in a culture that judges women quite critically about their appearance, and yet this impulse is absent in me where women are concerned. Despite all the marketing I've been subjected to in my 32 years, my brain simply doesn't size up women in the way heterosexual men do.

And that's why I ask about nature vs. nurture. Yes, I'm gay. But certainly the vast exposure to marketing and cultural constructs that do nothing but judge women on their appearance should have rubbed off at some point. And yet, it hasn't. Why? Why is this impulse so contingent on sexual attraction before that objectifying pattern of thought in males kick in?

I think there's some biology there. And if that is true, then I think our real problem with how men treat women shouldn't be trying to rejigger their brains, but trying to understand how we're culturally failing to raise men and young boys to not act like uncivilized assholes around and towards women.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
98. but this is what is frustrating
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:46 PM
Jan 2012

you wont find them doing the same study with women. (i forgot to check link for other study. i will) there was a study in work environment where a woman wore a low cut top, push 'em up and out, bra. she walked up to a man and it took so many seconds for him to remember his name. then they say, see, innate. a man cant even remember his name when looking at tits. they never do this study with women. create a scenario with a totally inappropriate visual and how long before it registers the question was asked.... what the question is .... and replying. the persons mind is on the unusual, the eye drawn. i bet if a woman was approached by a woman with her tits hanging out, she would have a lot going thru her brain and take the same (i think 5 sec) before she could answer name.

on the bikini vs clothed. why didnt they have the same study on women.

i notice every attractive person. it is what it is. attractive is attractive.

i am talking about when it goes from a mere thought of attractive to "use". and that i think is conditioned more in men.

where you were just allowed the privilege, even though it was not to women? women were not raised with the same privilege with sex.

but interesting

oh, i know the point i was going to make. what is frustrating is in the 80's, they asked a questionnaire to be filled with no controls. do you get turned on by a picture. what do you think the men are going to answer? what do you think a woman is going to answer? then they come back and say, see, men are visual. what??? set, game, match. it is a proven fact.

but, in 2009 study (in a post below), they actually hook up the brain and watched the pattern and see not only are women sexually aroused visually, EVERYTHING turns them on. man on man. woman on man. woman on woman. men tended to be turned on just to their sexual preference.

so many dismiss this study and refuse to even consider.

but again, the conditioning. that makes sense. a woman is not confined in her feminity as to the sexual turn on by gender. whereas a man is. though, that may not make as much sense with a gay man. i will have to think about that. it certainly makes sense societal pressure would do that to a hetero male.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
99. A thought on sexual privilege
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:58 PM
Jan 2012

Branching off from your statement there, there is one vital cultural clue that I think can be drawn from gay men vs straight men and how our culture informs our sexual treatment of others.

One thing you'll very rarely see a gay man do that straight men do is express their objectification publicly or in an inappropriate context. Because of the various cultural restraints placed on the expression of gay male sexuality, you don't get a whole lot of cat-calling in public or expressions of sexual interest in the workplace. Why? Because gay men know if they do it, they're risking some kind of backlash that isn't present for heterosexual men. Whether it's a heightened chance of being fired at work or provoking a physical confrontation in public from a straight male, there are often consequences for gay men who direct their sexual attraction towards others when it is unwanted.

I'm not saying gay men never do this - I have seen some ballsy gays in my time - and once you're in a gay bar or neighborhood, you'll see gay men express themselves inappropriately in a very similar manner as heterosexual men.

But there is obviously a cultural component to how the internal sexual objectification externalizes. Cultural attitudes and acceptance can affect how males express themselves inappropriately, because most gay men move through heterosexual society with those restrictions firmly in place.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
100. very good point. thanks.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:03 PM
Jan 2012

it is an obvious now that you bring it up. but ya.

anyway, it was fun actually talking about it, instead of assuming it is not about learning. truly, and i think my posts bare it out, i am more into listening, learning, and digging in, figuring things out or understanding.

thanks prism.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
118. Thanks for the discussion
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 02:44 PM
Jan 2012

Sorry I don't reply quickly. Once I'm at work, the internet vanishes for the day. But I've enjoyed our interaction on this topic.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
61. this may stray off topic a bit but I just remembered one of the most
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:18 PM
Jan 2012

brave kids I ever knew. In high school back in the sixties there was an out gay kid a couple of years ahead of me. He wore pointy toed Italian shoes, skin tight jeans and a scarf -sheer chiffony scarf- around his neck. Looked like he wore make up too and he didn't give a damn. Just came to school, rode his bike home and lived. Italian kid, quiet and held his head up. I never saw anyone braver.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
6. Another not-so-secret:
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:45 PM
Jan 2012

Women wear high heels, makeup, hair, implants, wonderbras, extensions, botox, etc, to attract men. And these silly-looking women only attract the WRONG men!!!!!

No man would walk around with their pants around their knees, holding them up with one hand, if there weren't women out there f@cking them

THEY have the power, and I hope they will someday use it!!

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
24. No woman would walk around wearing high heels, makeup, hair, implants, wonderbras, extensions, botox
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:23 AM
Jan 2012

etc, if there weren't men out there ******* them.

And some men act like callous, tough-guy, super confident macho men to attract women, and those silly acting men only attract the wrong women.

It goes both ways. It's nothing to do with power. It's education and social conditioning.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
26. I'm not so sure about "only"
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:20 AM
Jan 2012

I've known a lot of people from both sexes that I thought were pretty well adjusted with people that I thought were pretty superficial. I'm not sure I could tie education and social conditioning to it either as I've seen that go both ways as well. I think a lot of what attracts one person to another is either a lot simpler or a lot more complicated than most people suspect. Simpler meaning it's either got something to do with the way we are wired, or more complicated in that there are more variables that come in to play than we believe.

Missy Vixen

(16,207 posts)
62. We may have the "power", but it's only as long as we have unlined faces, thin bodies, and perky
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:33 PM
Jan 2012

boobs.

Women over 40 are virtually ignored unless they're "hot". Women over 50 are ignored. After all, there isn't a heterosexual guy on the planet that wishes to be seen speaking with, or being friendly to, a woman he (or his buddies,) don't consider boinkable.

I read a study recently that stated men believe any woman being friendly or polite to them is "interested". Women were just being polite and friendly. The findings also stated that most men had NO IDEA when a woman was truly interested. In other words, those who indulge in the high heels, makeup, implants, Wonderbras, extensions, Botox, etcetera, are most likely doing so for their own vanity. I color my hair and wear makeup for myself. I really don't care what any man who's ignoring me (or ogling the twenty-something across the room) thinks.

I'm also somewhat amused by the "cougar" designation. Nobody coined an insulting name for guys who date women 20+ years their junior. God forbid women should enjoy the same freedoms men have had for thousands of years, too.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
64. This heterosexual guy calls bullshit on one of your baseless claims:
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:01 PM
Jan 2012

"After all, there isn't a heterosexual guy on the planet that wishes to be seen speaking with, or being friendly to, a woman he (or his buddies,) don't consider boinkable."

This has to be the most absurd statement I've read all day

I think high heels look ridiculous. The more made-up and fluffed up a woman is, the less I find her attractive.

My last relationship was with someone who was 51 (I was 42).

I have female friends of every age and size/shape, and have no problem being seen in public with them.

You have some valid points, but they're being overshadowed by your broad-brush painting.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
67. of course it is not true. it is what you gender often presents and not many of you
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:28 PM
Jan 2012

will call bullshit on them, when they say it.

but i agree. if i were single today, i dont think i would have any problem finding a man, if i wanted. men like/need a relationship as much as a woman. and most men, the ones balanced and grounded generally prefer to have someone around their age to pass the time with.

statistics proves this out. as does real life

Missy Vixen

(16,207 posts)
68. Ooh, that's amusing
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:29 PM
Jan 2012

So, in other words, you believe that my real-life (and hundreds of girlfriends, female relatives, co-workers, and every other female I've had the opportunity to know) experiences are "baseless" since you are the only heterosexual male in North America that would slam the door in Mila Kunis' face? How about Angelina Jolie, or Lindsay Vonn?

FACT: Women are able to be friends with a guy they don't want to sleep with. Men don't have that ability. It's happened repeatedly, not just to me, but to every woman I know.

>You have some valid points, but they're being overshadowed by your broad-brush painting.<

I'm right.



 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
74. It's baseless when you claim ALL men are like that
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:54 PM
Jan 2012

I've never heard a man say he didn't want to be seen in public with someone unless she was someone his friends found attractive. That sounds more like something kids in high school would say.

dawg

(10,607 posts)
105. Missy, that just isn't fair.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:41 PM
Jan 2012

Male-female friendships are sometimes difficult to manage, but they aren't impossible. I would love to have a good female friend I could go places with.

Missy Vixen

(16,207 posts)
71. I haven't heard that term as much as I've heard "cougar" spat out like an obscenity
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:32 PM
Jan 2012

After all, it's a crime against nature that any woman would want plentiful and frequent sex, isn't it?

dawg

(10,607 posts)
106. I will at least grant you this much ...
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:45 PM
Jan 2012

I really do feel like I have NO IDEA when a woman is truly interested in me. I generally assume they are just being friendly.

Missy Vixen

(16,207 posts)
112. Men vs. women
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:19 PM
Jan 2012

Here's my definition of when a woman is interested.

Wants to be friends: Friendly, cordial. Seems most interested in conversation. Does not touch you, play with her hair, or make some of the other body language gestures a woman makes when she's attempting to secure your interest. (Eye contact a bit longer than normal with dilated pupils, crossing and uncrossing of legs, turns towards you, lines up her belly button with yours - you've seen it before, . )

Interested: Asks you out. On a date. Not "Let's watch the game" or "Want to get together for a beer with me and my friends?" but tries to see you alone. Body language offers BIG clues as well. Is she blushing/stammering/acting shy? Does she maneuver to be around you? Does she ask (directly or indirectly,) if you are single? Obviously, things are a bit different now, but someone who wants to be "just friends" usually doesn't have her hand on your thigh.

dawg

(10,607 posts)
114. Thanks.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:42 PM
Jan 2012

As a 44 year-old man, I know these things on a mental level, but when I'm actually talking with a woman I worry about perceiving things the wrong way. I never want to be the guy that always thinks every woman is after him - that is just so pathetic.

I *do* think I would get the message if a woman put her hand on my thigh, but .... you know, if it was only there briefly .... I'd probably still worry that I was taking it wrong. (Some folks are just touchy-feely that way)

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
116. just pinch her ass.... she will let you know one way or another.....
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:04 PM
Jan 2012

any whistling and looking way emoticon.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
10. LOL. Take it from me
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:50 PM
Jan 2012

It's not a closely guarded secret. It's quite open. Most women are well aware of the power they have and it's often put to use. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
29. the power is certainly there, it's almost embarassing
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:29 AM
Jan 2012

how one can put on the look and make men mad - but to me it felt dishonest, actually.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
12. myth; men are more visual. only bad comes using sex as a tool or weapon. i know i have influence
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:05 AM
Jan 2012

over men in my life. my hubby readily admits it.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm

It is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, we’re told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.

This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the “fact” that men leer more than women do, that they objectify women’s bodies more than women do men’s bodies, and that they just can’t stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.

Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.

Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.


but william, i am not sure what you are getting at. how is it we are to put it to use?

William769

(55,124 posts)
15. Depends on the dynamic of your relationship
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:13 AM
Jan 2012

My father was probably one of the worst when it came to treating women. My mother learned to use her power of persuasion over my father in many different ways.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
16. i see. i would walk first. i get that is ok for some. but i couldnt do that.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:29 AM
Jan 2012

i am very open. honest. and dont play games. wont play them back. i like to make it really easy for my mate so there is no anxiety, confusion, unpleasantness. this home is his safe place. for kids, too. i know people play each other. i dont. i would prefer to be alone.

i wasnt quite sure what you were getting at.

thanks.

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
25. All that study says is that women's brains
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:37 AM
Jan 2012

respond the same way mens do when stimulated visually.

Problem is... the brain isn't the part of the body that makes men and women different

I see what you are saying but I have to agree with the "old myth", in general, I think men are more visual and women are more emotional. That doesn't mean that men aren't stimulated emotionally or women aren't stimulated visually it's just a preference.

That's just been my experience...

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
39. study says they respond the same as men, but they dont have a penis, so rest my case?
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:44 AM
Jan 2012

really?

that is your argument?

tell me about this emotional thing. cause i dont get it. it has been pinned on me thru my gender forever, and i am clueless. everyone keeps telling me sex is about emotion with me. i cant do one nights, cause i am suppose to get turned on emotionally.

does that mean i cant get off with masturbation cause i am not getting the emotional (whatever it is, do tell, really, i am lost) whatever?

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
52. You are one mean woman...
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:58 PM
Jan 2012

I don't give a fuck how you "get off" it has nothing to do with me. I'm sorry I even responded to more of this male bashing culture you and your friends have started up on DU.

All I was saying is these are all GENERALITIES. Every person is different. And the study you posted, which I actually bothered to read, did not prove the point you were claiming it did. But hey I'm sure you didn't expect anyone to actually read it. Plus this was one preliminary study. Lots of others disagree with it. But hey just because YOU feel differently that must mean everyone else is wrong.

I apologize for intruding into your little fantasy, you won't be hearing from me again.

 

Froward69

(5,098 posts)
55. +1,000,000
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:34 PM
Jan 2012

As a Lonely, middle aged, Divorced, fat guy. I whole heartily agree with you.

it sure seems to me that the (new more prevalent) male bashing going on here is ridiculous.

I have Gay friends and date 20 somethings, with all of my 40something Female friends knowing how much of my being an asshole Persona is merely to attract younger women. (yes they even come over to eat, drink, have intelligent conversation and tease me in front of this weeks date as to how I could never really skin a kitten.

frankly if i were to drop it and agree with the floral patterns chosen for me then I would just hang it up and kill myself! as I would still be chained to the sanctimonious Bitch I married in the first place.

dawg

(10,607 posts)
108. I didn't see anything that was "mean".
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:03 PM
Jan 2012

Unless disagreeing with you is mean. Argue your point with her, but don't be surpirsed when she fights back.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
110. i had a poster
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:20 PM
Jan 2012

pm me. i had talked to him a couple days ago thru pm cause i thought someone was being unfair to him and wanted to say, i hear ya.

he pms today and says

OMG.... i didnt realize i had a courteous email exchange with "DU's most notorious men/sex-hater".

it made me laugh and laugh. lol

dawg

(10,607 posts)
107. I suspect that there is some truth to the "men being more visual" thing.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:59 PM
Jan 2012

For many years people made all kinds of assumptions about the sexes that proved to be false. Most of those assumptions were about how totally different men and women were.

Now, we are finding that men and women are very much alike - which is a wonderful thing if you ask me. But I think some of us try to overcompensate for the past by assuming that there are no differences other than the obvious. But, if nothing else, our bodies are shaped and influenced by very powerful, and different, hormones. Our brains have been shown to function somewhat differently as well. So there are probably some differences in the way the average woman perceives things from the way the average man perceives them. But there is plenty of overlap, too.

Let's use height for demonstration purposes. Men are taller than women. That is a general truth. But that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily taller than you. It's just about the averages.

Taking it to the next step, it could very much be true that men tend to be more visual in their arousal process than women, but that you are highly visual and I need to have an emotional connection.

I suspect that men really do tend to be more visual just because of the prevalance and nature of most pornography. I could be wrong about that, but even if I'm right, there would still be lots of visual-oriented women and lots of emotional-oriented men.

And really, aren't we all a mixture of the two anyway.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
109. ok with all that
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:17 PM
Jan 2012

and fair and balanced. but scientifically, the test calls bullshit. so then you have to ask, is it because it has always been tied into mens manhood to objectify women? cause there is the stripper thread and at first, before the men were called out, they challenged mens manhood if they had no interest in strip clubs. lol.

do you really think that a mans well defined body is not a turn on to women? come one.

the study that claimed men more visual was a questionnaire asking men and women if porn turned them on. in the 80's. how do you think men would answer. how do you think women would answer.

now, with total access to porn, look at our young women to do the same thing with men, that men have been doing with women from the beginning of time.

you may be right on some of this stuff. and i had a long conversation with son. he says there is a difference. what i said. he says, they are sudtle, but there. it is not this huge gulf, but they are there.

the way girls text to boys. the hand gestures. ect...

i get it. but they are such subtle things i am going to just treating people like people

and i really dont get the whole emotion sex thing that i have been given forever. what is that?

dawg

(10,607 posts)
111. myths and morality
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:46 PM
Jan 2012

No one, male or female, requires an emotional connection in order to get aroused. Many of us, male and female, do require an emotional connection before we choose to get sexually involved. Considering the high stakes of a sexual relationship, I have always considered sex outside of an emotionally close relationship to be an immoral thing. (Don't bother flaming me folks, I know I'm a bit of a prude.)

That being said, the notion that women need an emotional connection in order to get sexual is just wishful mythology on the part of men. Men want to believe that they can let themselves go and it doesn't matter. "Their" woman would never get hot looking at some well-proportioned, handsome man. But their porn addiction and trips to the massage parlor are okay, because that's just how men are. I hear this sort of thing all the time. I think it was more prevalent with the generation before mine, but I know plenty of men who still think this way.


 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
115. and this is what i think, too, dawg. a security blanket which goes along y theory of fragile
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:52 PM
Jan 2012

male ego. and i also say, the truth will set you free. women are not allowed an ego and males must be coddle. i am at a time in my life, i say fuck that shit. lol

ok

youngest son and husband did something to start a rant. i am starting a thread on it....

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
36. Try "The First Sex" by Helen Fisher
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:59 AM
Jan 2012

She is an anthropologist who uses biological and neuropsychological evidence to back up her ideas in an anthropological context. She discusses ways that men and women are different in ways that can be complimentary. She breaks stereotypes down by acknowledging common behaviors that have become misunderstood as negative rather than neutral. For example, "marrying for money." Sure it happens. It is also an adaptive behavior when it comes to having children in any society.
It is no different from a female coupling with a male based on physical characteristics that indicated he would be able to help provide resources and contribute the the success of her children.

The attraction to women whose appearance suggests that their bodies will support pregnancies well has been around for a very long time. In a modern world with more diversity in bodies, less curvy\busty women began to use other means (ie. make up) to attract men. So, men are not so much naturally more visual, but they have been conditioned to use visual indicators in their selection process more than women.

As for intellect, women look for capabilities that will supplement their own. Women are the primary language teachers. There is also truth behind the ability to multi task, while men have strength in single minded focus. While they once looked for physical strength, as the world has gotten more complicated, females eventually began looking a mate who has intellectual flexibility that allows them to contribute more and more to child rearing. etc.

In the end, women choose the mates.

Much more in the book. I think the evolutionary context because it suggests neutrality rather than attribute all behavioral origins and relations to various social pathologies.

That is not to say that there is no power struggle. There most definitely is. It is largely a result of women beginning to compete with men. They invented washing machines and dish washers and women thanked them by invading their territory and taking their jobs.
Another book "When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 To The Present" by Gail Collins fits very well into that evolutionary paradigm.

I found the combination of an evolutionary perspective combined with a modern timeline to be interesting.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
38. not so much naturally more visual, ... conditioned to use visual indicators i
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:36 AM
Jan 2012

i would imagine that it would behoove a woman in those times to find visual indicator to show signs of strength from a man, like a wide chest. but yes, that would be my argument that men thru privilege have been conditioned to create women as things to be used

there are a lot of things that are attributed to difference in the genders as evolutionary or innate, yet, when we roll into the 60's of independence and sexual freedom, they fall along the wayside. like the man above on this subthread that says men (regardless of this study, and regardless of him saying visual stimulation in the brain, men have a penis. that argument makes no sense) get turned on visually and women emotionally. for all kinds of conditioned reason, women were given this, but with getting out from under mans thumb, we find it not so much. all of a sudden women can have sex without a emotional tie even though that, too, seems to be a myth we pin on women. i dont even know what it means when people tell me i have to tie emotion to sex. never has made sense. but evolution does not evolve in a couple decades. conditioning's are broken in a couple decades.

if we are talking about women marrying for money, then that was surely well after the beginning of times. when we would look to evolution. hell ya, they are going to marry for money because they had no power or anything else.

in the 50's we thought evolution made women less capable, intellectual, able to work. we thought that was just evolution. until it wasn't, anymore.

i am just having a real tough time with this new and improved evolution behavior that makes guess that become facts that dictate and interfere with our lives.

then on top of that, to actually have a study to say, wait.... not true, and people fight to make it so, regardless. because you know it is used for dominance and no other reason.

thanks for you post. keep throwing that stuff out. argue, disagree. i have done some reading, but not much.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
51. Evolution
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:14 PM
Jan 2012

in a scientific sense vs. applying the idea to a social timeline are two very different things. I should have distinguished. My guess is that your reference to the 1950s and evolution refers to what the common mistaken beliefs that erroneously referred to science. Is that correct?
Part of what I was talking about was the evolution that includes selection, etc. And the evolution that is more socially driven. Relations between men and women are different in different cultures even within a single country. The assumption here is that we are talking about the US.

Having sex without "emotional ties" only became acceptable in the late 60s\early 70s. It was not until then that it became possible to do so without significant risk of pregnancy. The progression is well documented and reflected in movies and media.
There is a good reasons for the original construct that put women at a disadvantage when it comes to sex. Physical disparity during vulnerable interactions and the capacity to get pregnant had been very real considerations. Then came reliable birth control and women gained a greater sense of confidence. The penis essentially lost some power. That fact has not escaped men and they continue to cling to the idea that there is uncontrollable, inevitable power and superiority vested in the penis.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
54. love it. thanks. it is saying that from beginning of time women were created to have emotional sex
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:31 PM
Jan 2012

until four decades of birth control shows we are not.

it is that kind of bullshit that i have

like

men are visual and women are emotional. until they find that women are as, if not more visually stimulate than man.

i a seeing with evolutionary behavioral biology (psychology) all these absolute facts on who we are as a gender that are in reality guess and most all only from societal and cultural conditioning. all of us is to enforce male dominance. what it seems to me is in the past we had the bible to keep women in their place and now we have this new evolutionary cult to put us in our place.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
60. I am looking at adaptive responses rather than reflective assessments
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:16 PM
Jan 2012

When it comes to sex, my understanding is that women used a higher level of caution as an adaptive practice because of the risk of pregnancy. When I say "used" I am referring to a practice that was encouraged by dominant culture. It was adaptive in the sense that women had a long term provider and men were confident that they were raising their own children.

That adaptive practice became less necessary when effective birth control that could be controlled by women became available. Being able to experiment with sex and "audition" potential partners has been adaptive for some in producing children that have stronger potential and capabilities by having 2 contributing parents. Men didn't benefit a whole lot because they were presented with a risk of raising children that were not his own rather than contributing to the gene pool himself.

Another adaptation has been that when the parents separate, many women tend to organize themselves into optional families with combined single parent households or greater extended family involvement. Again men lose.

Historically adaptive behaviors that are not always helpful. As you noted "evolution" takes a long time. Both sexes can be fooled when they lean on the old ways. Attractiveness is not as good predictor of offspring success as it once was. Likewise, men who appear to have the most resources or competitive success are not necessarily consistent partners enough to validate the strategy.

Clearly greater independence and financial security has improved women's reproductive potential independent of the men who father the children.
Serial monogamy has become a more frequent practice that has given both sexes more room to adjust their needs for a successful reproductive and nurturing future. Women still have the advantage, though.


In short women have more opportunity to provide for children on their own. Thus, men have less control over their own biological investments. The best bet for a man is to couple with a successful woman.
Many men are still fighting that fact and the strategy is to push limits in institutional and religious contexts.

In the end, women are ahead of the game and as the respectful male feminists are selected by successful women more frequently than those who exhibit less "evolved" mentalities and behaviors. In my perfect world view, the former will be reproducing and raising children while the later will be less represented.

There are a lot of ways of looking at each pice of the puzzle.

.... "Look don't touch" is a whole other piece of the puzzle that is culturally apparent in pin-up girls, sex symbols, raw hard-core porn, etc. It is worth noting that that practice got more extreme with women's freedom. One could argue that it is a failed strategy to ensure female loyalty.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
65. ha.... enjoyed this very much
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:23 PM
Jan 2012

that made sense to me.

"There are a lot of ways of looking at each pice of the puzzle."

his is what has been lacking. so

""Look don't touch" is a whole other piece of the puzzle that is culturally apparent in pin-up girls, sex symbols, raw hard-core porn, etc. It is worth noting that that practice got more extreme with women's freedom. One could argue that it is a failed strategy to ensure female loyalty."

when you have time. more please. what do you see here.

and thank you so much.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
97. :) No problem enjoying this discussion
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:42 PM
Jan 2012

I have not explored men's side of the issue. So, my understanding of things like "look don't touch" is pretty limited. I think it could be interesting to explore, though.

Have you heard of the grandmother theory? It's very unusual that human females live beyond the age when they are fertile. But, we survive menopause and live many years beyond. There is a thought that it is because women contribute to species survival by grandmothering.

There is another interesting piece of that. When women lose estrogen, the small amounts of testosterone are unmasked. Women become more assertive, lose hair on their head but grow more on their eyebrows, voice gets deeper, etc. The opposite happens to men- they lose testosterone and estrogen is unmasked. They become less aggressive. This balance is adaptive because on average women live longer.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
103. interesting. ya...
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:11 PM
Jan 2012

i ahev been reading up on this with both hubby and i getting older. and recently i have heard that it is easier for older men to go to tears, which they never would have done younger.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
81. I had to LOL when I read this:
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:22 PM
Jan 2012

"The penis essentially lost some power. That fact has not escaped men and they continue to cling to the idea that there is uncontrollable, inevitable power and superiority vested in the penis."
----------------------------

That's what you think about men, huh? And we're supposedly the ones being castigated for objectifying people?

That is some of the worst gender-biased pseudo-science I have seen on DU. No, really, congratulations for reaching a spectacular low.

Are gay and bisexual men "clinging to the idea that there is uncontrollable, inevitable power and superiority vested in the penis?".

I can't wait to hear you try to explain how this is not horribly bigoted against men. Please enlighten me. I've stocked up on my

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
82. There was no mention of sexual orientation in my post as I was addressing male\female relations
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:06 PM
Jan 2012

The penis lost power when rape was finally acknowledged to be a crime. It has been a slow process, and the practice still vigorously defended. It was not long ago that even the most violent rape of a woman by her husband was not only not considered rape, it was entirely legitimate. With no recognition of her humanity, a woman was objectified as an item to be used as a husband saw fit.

The perception of penis as controlling male force and or weapon has been very clearly expressed in cultural imagery and behaviors over the course of centuries. Have you ever noticed that sexual language (clinical and otherwise) seems to cast men as the dominant figure? Beyond that, have you ever noticed that when someone wants to insult a gay man, they accuse them of taking on a female role?

A women can have children and raise them without the resources of a man. Just because any penis will do, that does not imply success only the potential for it.
With current technology, there are conditions where a woman can reproduce without directly interacting with a penis. Again reproduction is only the first step. It does not imply success.
My very simple point was women have more control over their own regeneration because their physical involvement is more necessary than that of men.
Less power over regeneration does place men somewhat at a reproductive disadvantage. That fact has not been lost on institutions horrified by birth control, divorce, single parenthood, abortion, and yes- homosexuality. Is it possible that there is a perception that gay men are not doing their part to keep women in line? Worth considering, maybe.
There are now conditions where any uterus will do, although it has not yet become widespread. I'm sure there will probably be a time when the uterus is unnecessary.

There is no bigotry here. Reproductive advantages\disadvantages do not imply any sense of superiority in the result of those opportunities. In fact, the fact that women may rely less on men for reproduction presents difficulties when it comes to parenting. There is strong evidence that kids are less successful when there is not a positive male role model.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
89. absolutely. another good post.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:20 AM
Jan 2012

"In fact, the fact that women may rely less on men for reproduction presents difficulties when it comes to parenting. There is strong evidence that kids are less successful when there is not a positive male role model."

agree again

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
90. I'm sure injecting pseudo-sociology and pseudo-science and ignoring the LGBT dimension
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:17 AM
Jan 2012

allows you to think there is objectivity and fact in what you write, but there isn't.

What you have written is a Valerie Solanas-esque bigoted diatribe fancied up with a Thesaurus.

It may fool some people, just like the Bell curve and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion fooled some people, but you are not fooling me.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
17. I don't know that it is ego fragility.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:35 AM
Jan 2012

More just a surety that nothing is stopping them and there are few consequences. There are some teachable moments, but it's hard to compete with the media barrage of shallow imagery. I think peer to peer male influence is effective too.

A male friend once told me "You wouldn't believe what men say about women when women aren't around to hear it. It's awful!" I said, of course I believe it, they say it to us in person. What's to stop them? Maybe the guy who thinks it's awful might have a better chance of influencing those conversations if he spoke up too, when it happens.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
30. FWIW
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:00 AM
Jan 2012

I've always been very honest with people. I like to talk about all kinds of things and I've never shied from telling women exactly what men say when women aren't around. Most of the time it's stuff they already know. What's been interesting for me is hearing all the things that women say when men aren't around. It's raised my eyebrows on more than one occasion.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
37. Yes, I like that
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:34 AM
Jan 2012

Thanks. Actually, I'm a bisexual geek hag. I go for geeks of all genders and orientations.

kimi

(2,441 posts)
35. Yes, I think some men do
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:49 AM
Jan 2012

need to objectify women. It distances them from the women in their lives, maybe, and so they don't have to get so involved in relationships, emotional entanglements, whatever. It gives SOME guys a cop-out. Dunno if it's due to fragile egos, though - might just be the way they were raised, their experiences with bitchy crazy chicks, or just plain assholery.

That being said, I've been beating my head against a brick wall lately asking myself the same question as the OP, and trying to come to terms with it. Personally, I've tried lately to tread a fine line between protecting a man's ego, and standing up for myself - and man oh man has it been a bitch of a time. Makes me wonder if women DO have that much influence over men - maybe it depends on the particular woman, and the particular man. Because sometimes, the twain simply don't frickin meet. JMHO.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
41. that is what it feels like to me. that it is so wrapped up in male ego of their manhood that they
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:54 AM
Jan 2012

cannot let that game go cause that means they are no longer a man. everything in society tells men, all the little jokes reinforce, you dont look, you are dead. what a man does. who a man is. and yes, i think the male ego is incredibly fragile.

many of the behaviors a man does, a woman cannot do to a man. demasculating him. they actually have a word. with women they tell them to suck it up. their ego is not even considered. yet, as women, we are raised to tippy toe around this and that. yet society is continually telling us that it is the women, that men, must view as fragile.

so there are contradictions all over.

interesting.

mainer

(12,013 posts)
40. Stephen Hawking says that women are a mystery to him
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:45 AM
Jan 2012

The universe is easy to understand in comparison.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
42. ya. what a cute, stupid little saying that men like to use
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:55 AM
Jan 2012

when is that one going to go away. women are a mystery, said with a condescending chuckle, wink wink

that crap

lol,

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
44. I think both men and women have to initially rely on visual considerations
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:19 AM
Jan 2012

for reasons of attraction or repulsion and none of us has a wit of power over it. No one can help who they are attracted to. No one.

But having said that the next step, if the attraction is mutual, is to de-objectify the other person. Getting to know someone is a huge factor in whether the original visual attraction has merit. Anthropologically women certainly have an agenda as there is need for some form of permanence in the relationship in which the male plays a vital role in the survival of the species. More vital than just being a sperm donor. Hence men are stronger and bigger, both of which are important to women who are not and to the rest of the community as well.

And I also believe that all attractions serve a purpose that is vital to the community. Mating is what keeps us going since we are basically social animals who require the community's protection of numbers against the hungry beasts out there, and other communities. The basic family unit serves the purpose of cementing the group whether there are offspring or not. Men and women will naturally choose mates who they are attracted sexually to, whether men choose men or women choose women, since that's already a built in automatic physical reaction which no one has control over, other than in how one responds to it.

The trick is to de-objectify the person you are attracted to initially if you want more than just a very brief encounter. That trick has turned out to be a very serious problem and why we're having a very hard time dealing with sexually based violence in our society. Parts of us are still still living in pre-historic caves.

MadrasT

(7,237 posts)
45. Interesting question...
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:21 AM
Jan 2012

...but I have to say, I have not seen that I have been able to exert much influence at all over men in my life simply because I am female. They pretty much have had a history of doing exactly whatever the hell they wanted to do, and the hell with what I wanted.

But then, I am highly allergic to manipulation in all forms... so that might be more about what I (as an individual) am willing to do to "get what I want".

Using "feminine wiles" (or whatever you want to call it) has never been a part of my toolbox, and I am happy to leave it out of my toolbox permanently.

I have been able to exert influence over people (not just men) in situations where I was required to be a leader that had nothing to do with gender.

I am not a big fan of mass characterizations of entire genders.

At all.

 

Kellerfeller

(397 posts)
47. It's not just men objectifying women
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:54 AM
Jan 2012

We do it all of the time in all sorts of ways.

When you are watching sports, are you thinking "Gee, I wonder what that player is thinking or what is going on in his/her life"? No, most people see the player as an object playing a role in that sport.

When you watch a movie, do you see the actors as the people they are or (if they are good) just as a tool for your entertainment? While the movie is running, are you wondering what the actor is thinking or what is going on in that person's life? Most don't.

Heck, too many people even do it to people far closer to them. Far to many see waitstaff as a mindless tool there to take their order and bring them food, often without a please or thank you.

It can be a bad thing but not always. Does it hurt a woman if I look at pictures of her beautiful body in Playboy and it get me excited? Nope. Just as it does hurt me if I'm walking in the mall and some demented, sad women objectifies my body (or even me as some ideal mate with qualities I don't really have).

It can be a bad thing if the objectification leads to the person ACTING in a manner that is ugly or disrespectful. If I see the ref as nothing more than a ref, not giving a crap about him as a person throughout the game, that is not a bad thing. If someone throws a bottle at a ref because he is "just a ref", then it is a problem.

Missy Vixen

(16,207 posts)
63. Women like observing men, too.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:47 PM
Jan 2012

I was always under the impression that men enjoyed such behavior. I read an article recently that stated younger men believe "women over 40" should just "stop looking at them". Okay. I wouldn't want to offend.



We're all human. We're all going to look twice at someone, male or female, exceptionally attractive or interesting. Does this mean I'm objectifying them? Probably not. Mostly, I'm wondering what would make THEM turn around and stare.

I was at Romance Writers of America's national conference in July. We receive free books from publishers at our conference. There are some very handsome men posing for romance covers these days. I was drooling over the following:

http://www.amazon.com/Raziel-Fallen-Kristina-Douglas/dp/1439191921/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326317953&sr=1-3#reader_1439191921

My roommate was horrified. "You are OBJECTIFYING HIM. That is WRONG."

I'm sure he didn't care if my 50+ self stared at him all day, as long as the check cleared. I also suggested to her that she might be in the wrong line of work.

What's the difference between objectification, and simply admiring someone else one might find attractive?

 

Kellerfeller

(397 posts)
76. I don't think there is a difference
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:01 PM
Jan 2012

Which is why I think the hand-wringing about objectifying people is silliness.

We pretty much all do it on a regular basis, in all sorts of fashions (not just sexually), will no ill effects--except for sporting a little wood in the case of us guys!!

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
121. IMO, the difference is respect; admiring someone is simply a passive act of observation.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:12 PM
Jan 2012

Objectifying someone is more complicated, involving how one interacts with the individual being objectified, specifically, disrespecting privacy, personality and character, etc.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
69. cause it is fun???? lol.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:29 PM
Jan 2012

a lilttle taunt. a little jab. in cute ways. but it does open up conversation. as in, no thank you, not interested in manipulating and using another.

 

Froward69

(5,098 posts)
56. I like to be objectified... expect me to be the same as your dildo.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:41 PM
Jan 2012

I wont take out the garbage or mow the lawn either.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
57. While I believe that there are indeed men with fragile egos.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:47 PM
Jan 2012

While I believe that there are indeed men with fragile egos, and that objectification of women by men happens much more often than we like to believe, what leads you to believe that the one is predicated on the other?

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
77. "influence"? You're not telling them anything they don't already know. n/t
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:39 PM
Jan 2012

As John Berger put it "Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at." or, as a recent comedian put it "Men look at women. Women look at women's shoes."

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
120. K&R - and yes, many men DO need to dehumanize women in order
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 04:37 PM
Jan 2012

to feel superior. Sad, but that's how our culture socializes too many males, IMHO.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is the male ego so fragil...