Sexual Objectification Is More Damaging to Women Than You Might Think

[Mari333]

That’s the startling implication of a research paper titled “My Body or My Mind,” recently published in the European Journal of Social Psychology. It suggests some women who are objectified by men internalize this perception and think of themselves as “a sexual object to be scrutinized.” For reasons that are not entirely clear, this process appears to undermine their cognitive ability.

A woman in this situation simultaneously sees herself as a unique individual and a generic sexual being. Dividing the psyche in this uncomfortable way “is likely to increase cognitive load, with a resulting decrease in the availability of cognitive resources for the tasks the individual engages in,” Gay and Castano write.







http://www.alternet.org/story/146396/new_discoveries_suggest_that_sexual_objectification_is_more_damaging_to_women_than_you_might_think

I always knew this when I was younger. Of course, I fought back.

[county worker]

1. All of advertising objectifies women. And women internalize it.

A look at many magazines for women show that to me. My wife buys them and I look through them.

[Xenotime]

35. I hate the objectification that is done to appeal to men.

[arbusto_baboso]

41. A lot of objectification of women is done to appeal to other women.

One look at Cosmo will tell you all you need to know about that.

And as far as that goes, nothing is more insulting and belittling to women than romance novels...

[Caliman73]

77. I don't know if it is to appeal to women or to instruct them....

and by "instruct" I do not mean inform or educate, I mean that advertising is still predominantly own and run by men although women do much of the work that gets put out into the public. Advertising is not necessarily to appeal to women so much as to tell them what they should look like, and wear, and act like.

[arbusto_baboso]

80. If women buy into it, what's difference does the terminology make?

Seems to me we're debating "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

[Caliman73]

84. Terminology makes a hell of a difference because it describes the process.

Like the difference between "victim" and "accomplice". The same arguments are made about minorities. Blacks and Latinos are poor because they are lazy and dumb, not because the system is stacked against them. If they just "rose about it" and applied themselves then there would not be the problems within those communities.

Women don't "buy into" objectification. They either don't know enough about it, or they relent to the constant pressure to conform to societal "norms". Have you not heard the term "internalized oppression". You might want to look it up.

[arbusto_baboso]

86. I know all about the term, but disagree with some of your conclusions.

I know a number of women who are completely aware of how they are objectified and still conduct their lives according to what they internalized. At some point, they do indeed shift from being victims and become volunteers.

And before you flame me for "thinking like a Freeper", let me say that I don't believe in blaming the victim. But I also don't believe in granting a victim a lifetime pass to not work on their issues, either.

[Caliman73]

94. That is not what is being discussed.

No one is saying that anyone should get a free pass. The point is that the effects of the dominant attitude has a deleterious effect on the abilities of the objects of those attitudes to make changes in their lives. I know many family members who understand the government and societies mistreatment of Latinos who continue to praise society and attribute problems solely to themselves too. So...yeah, it happens.

I don't think you are thinking like a Freeper. It is a difficult balance between expecting people to improve their situation and understanding just how deep those conflict and messages go in paralyzing people. it is common for people, including myself, to put responsibility on individuals and take responsibility away from faceless entities that are driving the attitudes. There are magazines like Ms. and others that challenge the paradigm, but that is like comparing progressive media to mainstream and right wing media regarding what messages are being put out to the public and how the average citizen responds to that messaging.

Asking women to take a stand against advertising that objectifies them is like asking people to stop driving or using petroleum products to protest the oil companies. It can be done, but it is not an easy task and you can't throw blame at people for not being strong enough to rise above it.

Do you drive or use anything made of plastic?

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. What's the difference?

Does Cosmopolitan market itself to men?

[Xenotime]

109. That is tame compared to this

[NM_hemilover]

148. I think one slight difference is that Megan Fox

WANTS to be known as a tart, and WANTS to be eye humped for nothing more than her body. Just for funny, that's not her real thumb.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. how many times do men think about sex per hour?

and if women are so turned off by how we think, why do they spend so much time preparing their faces and their clothes?

Sex is natural, fun, and somewhat critical to our species' survival. People are attracted to each other, in large part, because of sex. To ignore the obvious is to, well, ignore the obvious.

To characterize sexual attraction, the quite common males' pleasure in sexual issues, and the scrutiny under which we place women as something bad is ridiculous. Stupid. Mental masturbation by some scientists looking for a headline.

[redqueen]

4. Objectification is not synonymous with sex or sexuality.

You're muddying the waters here. Why?

[NoNothing]

13. It seems pretty close

Men ogle women because they are sexually aroused by them. If women are uncomfortable with the fact that they arouse men, or that men do not sufficiently hide this fact, then I think it's hard to argue that this is not about sexuality.

[redqueen]

17. "Ogling" is not part of sexuality.

It's just rude, dominating behavior, siple as that. The vast majority of men can find a woman attractive and not act like a pig about it (it's true, believe it or not).

We are taught that this behavior is part of normal sexuality (not just appreciative glances, but predatory ogling) by the media, and far too many soak up the propaganda willingly.

Read about the Male Gaze.

[NoNothing]

20. Seems a pretty fine distinction to me

So what is a man supposed to do? Avert his eyes? Can he look for 1 second? 5? Does he have to peek out of the corner of his eyes? Does he have to wear mirrored sunglasses? If you're going to draw a huge line between "appreciative glances" and "predatory ogling" then we should be able to expect some clarity about these things.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

27. A man can realize that women are entitled to the same dignity in public that he is.

This wide-eyed disingenuous act - "But, but, what are men supposed to DOOOOO??? How will we KNOOOOOW if you won't tell us??" is getting real stale. I've seen guys get violent toward other guys very quickly over staring. Staring is rude and being stared at is uncomfortable and disconcerting. If you think you have a right to stare at certain people because of who they are and who you are then YOU have a seriously overblown sense of entitlement.

[NoNothing]

29. I never said anything about staring

I'm perfectly able to distinguish leering and staring from just looking. But usually when I try to pin things down the bottom line is that any attention at all by a man, especially an unattractive man, is deemed "wrong." Which I think is ridiculous.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. well put.

[redqueen]

33. Apparently you need to look up 'objectification' too.

Seriously? This is seriously your response? That it's only ugly guys who objectify women, cause women just love it when cute guys leer at them?

Fucking hell.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. If you are "perfectly able to distinguish" then you don't need to "pin things down".

You are derailing this discussion and attempting to turn it into one about how the poor widdle Nice Guys^TM don't get to act creepy toward uh I mean "appreciate" attractive women.

[NoNothing]

43. No I'm not

Stop putting words in my mouth please. I am simply trying to push back against an effort that I see to shame men for being aroused by women.

Perhaps we can reach some common ground: Will you agree, that it does not inherently "objectify" a woman, for a man to be aroused by her?

[Hello_Kitty]

45. Strawman.

The OP is not about male arousal.

[NoNothing]

48. Right, it is about "objectification"

I am trying to establish that whether there is a discernible difference, and if so, what it is.

If you disagree with my premise above, then the answer appears to be "no, there is no difference."

[Scout]

51. objectification and arousal are not the same thing

we don't care if we make your dick hard, that's your problem ... we do care about how you act around us.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. It's so stunningly simple, isn't it? eom

[NoNothing]

54. Okay

So as this relates to "objectification:" if a man looks at a women he is not aroused by, is that different from when a man looks at a woman he is aroused by? In other words, does intent matter? Or is there simply a certain external behavior that is objectionable, that is objectification regardless of intent?

In other words, is there any possible objective way to establish when "objectification" occurs without needing to know that state of mind of either the man or the woman?

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Is there any possible objective way to convey to you that YOU are responsible for your own behavior?

Your state of arousal notwithstanding.

[NoNothing]

60. Where am I disputing that?

All I'm trying to do is discern what is and is not objectification. Is there any possible way you could answer the questions I asked? If you can't or don't want to, just say so. Please stop acting as though I'm saying something I'm not.

[Dorian Gray]

149. Looking isn't a problem

Staring, leering, ogling are problematic. If someone glances at me and thinks I'm attractive, that's fine. If someone stares at me, leering, with tongue hanging out and catcalls to me? Not so good.

It's about respect.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. Your arousal does not negate your obligation to respect the rights and dignity of others.

Your arousal is YOUR issue and your behavior is YOUR responsibility.

[MonkeyMama]

153. Very well stated. Thank you.

[Berry Cool]

100. It's just more Penile Apologist behavior.

And it's very common on DU. Sad to say.

"I can't help it, it's just that I have this penis and I can't control it," which eventually migrates over to "I can't help it, and moreover I shouldn't have to, because a bunch of evolutionary biologists told me I'm the normal one and YOU are the hungup one with the problem."

[redqueen]

113. Since the subthread above got deleted...

what is it that makes you think you know me well enough to go talking about me to others as if you do?

You don't know me. Keep your speculation about my supposed regret at not having been a stripper to yourself.

Thanks.

[Maru Kitteh]

128. It makes one wonder what other body parts

one might use to excuse unfortunately detestable behavior.


I'm terribly sorry about that time I wired your mom's dog's mouth shut. His voice hurt my ears and I just couldn't control my behavior. I mean..... c'mon. My EARS hurt. Besides, I think the dog wanted it.

[LanternWaste]

70. I do not "ogle" the Mona Lisa

I do not "ogle" the Mona Lisa, nor does it sexually arouse me, yet I still find the object of the work attractive and quite beautiful. I certainly do not see this as a gray area, but it may be for many people.

Additionally, I as I can allow myself to feel or deny hate, or love, or joy, or frustration, I can also allow or deny myself to feel sexually stimulated. As in all things, perception lies with our own selves, and is rarely predicated on the appearance of another-- unless we allow it to.

Even on the occasion that I may find myself believing a female has dressed up to sex-up, it's still rests with me as to whether I allow myself to see her as an object or a person.

But that's just me....

[seabeyond]

72. and it is so simple. you control instead of controlless. why would anyone paint themselves without

control. why would they want to. why would they brag about having no control. why.... would they see it as a badge of honor. unless, a person is just so very young they dont know better.

thank you

[eridani]

136. Learn from cats. Glance, look away. Lather, rinse, repeat

Unobtrusive appreciation is actually possible.

[treestar]

157. That's where men are victimized

or objectified. You believe you're not a man if you don't think about sex all the time and can't look at a woman two seconds without thinking about sex. That's ingrained into you and you feel emasculated if you find you can have a conversation about something else with a woman.

You're just playing into the same thing, and it impoverishes your relationships. You could talk to a woman without thinking about sex, and get something out of that conversation. You could have good friends in women. You just let the same forces deprive you of all that.

[seabeyond]

159. *sigh* arent you the smart one.

yes.

[closeupready]

24. This, I also agree with. The kind of leering, wolf-ish gaze

popularized on TV and culturally is disgusting piggish behavior. But it's sooooo common.

[Maru Kitteh]

131. It's bullying behavior is what it is. Pure and simple.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. thank you for your commandment from on high.

Ogling is NOT about sexuality, not even in some small part?

get some reality with your next meal, please. Sprinkle heavily.

[redqueen]

32. In denial much?

I see you appreciated the 'poor me' post above, in which we are told that objectification is determined by the attractiveness of the man doing the objectifying.

Pathetic, really.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. I don't give a shit what it's about.

Your "sexual arousal" is your issue, not that of every woman you see in public. YOU are in control of your behavior.

[dem mba]

36. not act like a pig about it

in front of your face, you mean, right?

some of us men are quite wily, but believe me, all men are aware of an attractive woman's presence.

[redqueen]

38. *sigh*

Yes... all men act like pigs the second they're not around women.

I'm just going to try not to come back to this thread. Hopefully some guys will show up and either back you up or not.

[Scout]

46. you know, if women say things like that about men we get our shit jumped all over

but when men say it about other men, meh, not so much

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

50. Seriously. eom

[dem mba]

56. yea i should have just stayed out of the convo myself

i should know better than to get caught up in the gender wars.

truce. retreat. whatever, i'm out.

[closeupready]

5. I agree.

This article is sort of nonsensical.

[Scout]

7. clueless

sexual attraction and sexual objectification are not the same thing.

and why do you assume that women spend "so much time preparing their faces and their clothes" for YOU to look at? i've heard people say many times that women "dress for other women."

and what about we women who dress for OURSELVES, and don't wear makeup at all?

perhaps you should quit with the "mental masturbation" and try some of the physical kind :eyes:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. then, please explain the difference. Use small words, so even I can get it.

all that testosterone, you know.

[redqueen]

34. Ask closeupready. He's a guy.

Gee... I wonder why neither of you guys is asking him.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Scout]

40. no, i don't think testosterone has ANYTHING to do with it

you're the one throwing that shit out here. i think it has everything to do with selfishness, self-entitlement, and privilege.

since you're claiming to be a simpleton, here you go:

Main Entry: 1 ogle
Pronunciation: \ˈō-gəl also ˈä-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ogled; ogling \-g(ə-)liŋ\
Etymology: probably from Low German oegeln, from oog eye; akin to Old High German ouga eye — more at eye
Date: 1682

intransitive verb : to glance with amorous invitation or challenge
transitive verb 1 : to eye amorously or provocatively
2 : to look at especially with greedy or interested attention

— ogler \-g(ə-)lər\ noun

Main Entry: 1 glance
Pronunciation: \ˈglan(t)s\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): glanced; glanc·ing
Etymology: Middle English glencen, glenchen
Date: 15th century

intransitive verb 1 : to strike a surface obliquely so as to go off at an angle <the bullet glanced off the wall>
2 a : to make sudden quick movements <dragonflies glancing over the pond> b : to flash or gleam with quick intermittent rays of light <brooks glancing in the sun>
3 : to touch on a subject or refer to it briefly or indirectly <the work glances at the customs of ancient cultures>
4 a of the eyes : to move swiftly from one thing to another b : to take a quick look at something <glanced at his watch>transitive verb 1 archaic a : to take a quick look at b : to catch a glimpse of
2 : to give an oblique path of direction to: a : to throw or shoot so that the object glances from a surface b archaic : to aim (as an innuendo) indirectly : insinuate

— glanc·er noun

Main Entry: 1 gaze
Pronunciation: \ˈgāz\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): gazed; gaz·ing
Etymology: Middle English
Date: 14th century

: to fix the eyes in a steady intent look often with eagerness or studious attention

— gaz·er noun

do i need to highlight the important parts for you?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

57. yes, please. too many big words.

well, this series of posts prove what I suspected. some liberals are liberal to a point, after which, they attack males because of their human nature.

[redqueen]

66. Yes, because being rude and staring is just 'human nature'...

I love these threads.

[Mari333]

104. its human nature to shit your pants but we learn to use the toilet

[ChairmanAgnostic]

107. Ah, thanks. Now I know why I can't get a date.

[nickinSTL]

156. in my case, if a woman is dressing up to impress me

she's wasting her time.

I assume that's not true for most guys, but I prefer a woman to not be slathered with makeup and dressed in something that they wouldn't usually wear.

You want to get me interested, show up with no makeup in a pair of comfortable jeans.

Of course, on the objectification issue - I try to avoid looking at a lot of that crap (which is made much easier by not reading popular magazines and rarely watching TV) - and when advertising is pushing BS, I try to catch it (like all women love their vacuums and all men are too incompetent to care for their children - both common in TV advertising).

[Mari333]

9. well, when I was a young woman I liked myself too much to do that

I knew I was brilliant and I had no time for such nonsense (fixing up, etc)

but, then,I adore myself, always have. minus the shallow stuff.

I leave the shallow stuff to the hookers.

[The Straight Story]

63. About as often as women think about the men's money

:hide: :rofl:

[seabeyond]

64. exactly. and that too is learned. that to is conditioned and promoted. kinda

like your post. that is not the majority of women. so we know it isnt innate, or biological, or gotta be or dna or evolutionary behavior. we know it is learned. and can become unlearned. or never be if we respect the human being, as a person, not a mere provider

you are right on straight

[Mari333]

105. wrong.I have never done that and no woman with self esteem would do that

[Caliman73]

78. It isn't about attraction.

It is about viewing women as an object for sexual gratification. When you dehumanize a person, even if you think that sex is a natural activity, you are failing to see your partner as a human being with thoughts and feelings. It is much easier to dismiss the feelings and rights, and eventually commit violence against people when you do not see them as humans.

When we apply simplistic and conflicting or limiting stereotypes to others and ourselves, we damage them and ourselves. It is not mental masturbation, it is trying to get people to see each other as human beings instead of a piece of ass.

[seabeyond]

79. right on.

i want to save your post. exactly. thank you.

*sigh*

[Bonobo]

115. Thought police.

You want it both ways.

So it is not enough to stop the ogling (outward behavior). Now we are to be criticized for daring to have 'dehumanizing thoughts').

What is the magical process by which my internal thoughts lower a person's self-esteem?

[Caliman73]

133. Aww, us poor downtrodden men. Yawn....

And who is this WE of which you speak Kimosabe? Notice my screen name? It isn't about stopping behavior or criticism about thoughts. It is about getting people to engage in a little introspection. Nobody said anything about thoughts lowering anyone's self esteem. Thoughts however, influence behavior. If in your mind, you dehumanize people, you are more likely to act in ways that dehumanize people. You cannot immediately control your reactions and thoughts, but you can control how much you attend to and act upon thoughts. A little understanding and self control is what is being discussed.

[Bonobo]

134. That was so predictable. Yawn.

That kind of scorn and mockery is invariably the next response when hypocrisy of this type is pointed out.

[Donnachaidh]

137. scorn and mockery - where?

They answered your post in a thoughtful manner. Pretty good explanation of the point actually. The only scorn I see is in your hypersensitivity in *any* idea that might possibly insult men for their *actions* period.

Something certainly struck a nerve. :shrug:

[Caliman73]

152. truth hurts

get over it tough guy.

[goldcanyonaz]

96. Women think about sex many times an hour too.

Y'all don't own that any longer.

Also, the majority of women I know wear makeup because they like it not to please or attract a man. Most women are more interested in their careers these days than settling down so we* have sex when we want to and don't feel guilty about it either.

This is one of the reasons why women aren't marrying until their late 30's, early 40's and having children so late in life.

Men, no longer define us, we define ourselves and we're fabulous just the way we are.

*I'm married but was like this prior to getting married.

[redqueen]

102. Precisely so.

Well said. :thumbsup:

[Withywindle]

106. Well said and thank you!

I actually agree with some of the clueless men on this thread about one thing: sexual arousal IS often an involuntary biological response. Sure is for me. Guess what - women feel it too. Oddly enough, very rarely do we feel compelled to hoot and holler rude remarks at hot men on the street, and even if we did, it doesn't carry the same sense of THREAT and DOMINATION that it does the other way around, because, surprise surprise, female-on-male rape is NOWHERE NEAR as common and unfortunately, culturally routine, as the reverse.

Objectification is the reducing of another person to an object. The only kind of sex I'm interested in (and I assure you I'm very interested in this) is the kind that takes place between two (or more) SUBJECTS. Well-rounded human beings, all of whom think of themselves as "I" and have their own private inner worlds and thoughts and feelings, and make a conscious choice to share the sexual aspect of same with one another.

Hell, I hate being hooted or stared at just because it interrupts my thoughts, which might be something profound and deep about politics and the universe, or might just be a sexual fantasy about something I find hot. Which is almost guaranteed not to be anything like the pushy butt-in-ski.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

142. "Men no longer define us"... not entirely accurate.

To an extent, they still want to (and do) define our sexuality. See "Female Chauvinist Pigs" by Ariel Levy.

[seabeyond]

146. exactly. this is all i have been saying for, ... or ever. lol.

Levy cleverly leads us to explore the role models women aspire to emulate. We are not pursuing the confident, self-determined, powerful, free ideal the women’s liberation movement would have dreamed for its daughters. Instead, our icons are porn stars and strippers and prostitutes. Paris Hilton and Jenna Jameson flaunt their successes in the pornography industry, and in doing so seem to earn our adulation.

Levy relates our embracing of this raunchy culture to unresolved tensions thirty years ago between the sexual revolution and the women’s liberation movement, and amongst feminists; joy at discovering the delights of our clitoris conflicting with disgust at pornography’s objectification of women. She creates a convincing argument by analyzing a diverse spectrum of material; presents a fascinating palette of interviews with revolutionary women’s libbers, nouvelle raunchy feminists, and everyday women and men. Detailed facts and recurring names are sometimes cumbersome, albeit worth ploughing through for the ‘a-ha moments’.

The reality that we model ourselves on images whose "individuality is erased" is harsh, yet Levy’s work is imbued with hope – hope that women can celebrate their uniqueness instead of their ‘hotness’, explore their sexuality as delight rather than consume sex as currency, and succeed professionally because of their brilliant minds and personalities, not because of their brilliant bodies.--Megan Jones Ady --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.






"Starred Review. What does sexy mean today? Levy, smartly expanding on reporting for an article in New York magazine, argues that the term is defined by a pervasive raunch culture wherein women make sex objects of other women and of ourselves. The voracious search for what's sexy, she writes, has reincarnated a day when Playboy Bunnies (and airbrushed and surgically altered nudity) epitomized female beauty. It has elevated porn above sexual pleasure. Most insidiously, it has usurped the keywords of the women's movement (liberation, empowerment) to serve as buzzwords for a female sexuality that denies passion (in all its forms) and embraces consumerism. To understand how this happened, Levy examines the women's movement, identifying the residue of divisive, unresolved issues about women's relationship to men and sex. The resulting raunch feminism, she writes, is a garbled attempt at continuing the work of the women's movement and asks, how is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish good for women? Why is laboring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering? Levy's insightful reporting and analysis chill the hype of what's hot. It will create many aha! moments for readers who have been wondering how porn got to be pop and why feminism is such a dirty word"

[treestar]

158. Wouldn't it be better if you weren't so dominated by it?

That sounds like torture.

There are other things to think about.

And what is this "we" with men, have you no individuality? Can one man speak for all others?

Do you put men down if they only think about sex once per day? You're allowing a sort of oppression of men right there. Why should they have to, or feel unmanly? Can't they do something else or have any platonic relationships?

[Liquorice]

162. Who cares how often men think about sex? I don't give a damn, as long as they keep it to themselves

and don't bother me with it.

[closeupready]

3. I don't really understand this article.

Either from the standpoint of how men are victimizing women, nor how women are passive bystanders in this.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Back in my "hot" days

I never thought I'd find myself in my 40s, receiving little to no sexual interest from men and welcoming it. I agree with the article's premise. Not having to maintain and negotiate life around my status as a sex object has freed my mind for many other things.

[Mari333]

10. xactly. :)

[Scout]

11. +1,000,000

life is a lot easier and a lot more pleasant for me when i'm fatter than women are supposed to be...

when i fit the standard, i got so fucking sick of the assholes hanging around. men that wouldn't look twice at me when i was fat, suddenly thought that now that i lost weight i'd be interested in their interest. HA! they can go fuck themselves!

have a great hubby now, who met me when i was fat, i got fatter, now i've lost some weight and we are still together. gosh, i guess he must like, love and appreciate me! and as i continue to lose weight, those other men can still go FUCK THEMSELVES, unless they can find some poor gullible woman to do it for them. :rofl:

[Mari333]

12. I was a hottie..I didnt even try, I hated it hated it hated it

I couldnt even walk down the street without some asshole bothering me. I hated being bothered.
every swinging dick would bother me.
I finally got mad one day when I was sitting in a restaurant reading Voltaire, and a guy started bothering me (I wasnt allowed to be alone, evidently) so I threw the goddamned book at his head.

I have been known to throw things when I get mad if my serenity is bothered.

anyway Im glad Im old now..no one bothers me thank you god I am FINALLY FREE.

now I get to deal with ageism...I think I will still throw things tho ...: )

[DaveJ]

42. I hope you realize that not all guys are like that.

I'm sure you were using hyperbole by saying "every swinging dick." In my estimation about 50% of guys are morons who think it's ok to treat women like objects. Sadly they become fathers and I guess teach their daughters that it's normal too. But I hope women realize that we aren't all that way.

[Scout]

49. if you are a man, and not a "swinging dick" then she wasn't talking about you

:shrug:

[Bonobo]

117. See what I mean? You have no clue of how hypocritical you sound, do you? rom

[Scout]

140. one is judged to be a "swinging dick" by one's behavior

and if you can't see that there is a difference in the behavior of a man, and the behavior of a male who is a "swinging dick" then that's your problem.

[Mari333]

55. oh I know that now I have had 2 wonderful husbands who were good men

and now that I am an old widow I am fine and know tons of great men out there.

back in the day I was a lot angrier than I am now. now I just get mad when people call me honey or sweety because of my age. I want to slap them. But Im still nice and just roll my eyes.

[seabeyond]

62. this is the thing dave. we KNOW it is not all men. we are around enough men, to SEE

it is not all men. and then.... you have the young, stupid or obtuse that purposely say.... this is who a male is. then we say, no it isnt... then, well hell, it is what it is.

no dave

not all men are....

[DaveJ]

87. Don't give up. Sensitive men used to be respected.

As some have pointed out, MSM has a lot to do with the problem. When I was young I had the impression that good guys were the ideal, but not anymore. Now the ideal man = money power sexsual conquest extroversion, etc... according to the MSM.

We probably can't fight back with words, but we can note bad behavior and eventually maybe others will naturally catch up when they see it's not being rewarded.

[Bonobo]

116. "every swinging dick would bother me."

Now THAT, ladies and gentlemen is OBJECTIFICATION.

And on this board, in this environment, it is not only acceptable. It is LAUDED by many.

CULTURE is a two-way street. You create your own world and your own karma. Good luck with that.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Oh yeah, I've had many weight fluctuations

What I loved was when a guy I barely knew would walk up to me and loudly praise my weight loss, as his eyes roamed over my body.

[Dorian Gray]

150. You and I had a similar experience

I've lost 95 lbs, and I think I generally am more attractive now than I was 10 years ago. Some old boyfriends are coming out of the woodwork. Of course, I am married and in love with my husband who married me when I weighed a lot more and has always treated me with love and respect, so it's not an issue. I find the uptick in male attention amusing to a certain extent, but only a few times have I truly felt uncomfortable because of that attention. If a guy I know tells me I look good, great. If I guy I know tells me he wants to "F--- me" cause I look better... yeah, not so appropriate. There are boundaries of respect, and people who know me should know them. As for random strangers... it's easier to ignore, but also not pleasant to be made to feel like a piece of meat.

[treestar]

160. The weird thing is the interest you get when you lose weight

Even if the lost weight is higher than weights you might have been in the past.

IOW, the fact you lost weight is presumed to be to attract them. It's the effort and not how much you actually weigh that counts.

So if you weigh say 120 for years, you don't get as much interest as someone who weighed 150 and now weighs 130.

[leftyladyfrommo]

147. Oh, I agree.

I watch these young kids in their "hot" outfits and it makes me feel really bad for them. Being a sex object just absolutely kills the soul.

Trouble is that you don't see the damage until you are older. And by then it's too late.

Women ought to burn those bras and dump all that makeup and cutsy little short skirts and stuff.

[Arugula Latte]

151. I used to get all sorts of lewd comments and also demands that I "Smile!"

I would be walking down the street and out of nowhere some man (ALWAYS a man) would accost me with "Hey -- Smile!" Like, maybe I was walking along pondering my neighbor's impending death or something, and because I'm not bubbly or perky enough for this asshole I get to choose between meekly complying with his demand to smile, blowing him off completely or snarling at him.

[Scout]

154. i HATE being told to smile ... depending on circumstances,

my response is likely to be "go fuck yourself"

[Liquorice]

161. OMG, I have had that exact experience many times. I started thinking

maybe my normal, "neutral" face made me look angry or something--I really became self-conscious about it! LOL At least now I know it had nothing to do with my facial expression and everything to do with self-centered idiots who for some reason think I am required to smile at them. I don't have to smile at anybody!!

[Echo In Light]

8. We're in the last few yrs before our daughter will be impacted socially by this type of marketing

... day in/day out at school.

The corporate culture creates this sense of gaging the intrinsic worth of human life via one's earning/spending habits...and of course ties much of it into marketing their poison jive as 'normal,' and w/precious few living examples within many children's immediate sphere of influence - to call the broader corp culture's tenets/value$ into question - many simply abide the static commercial 'reality.'

[Mari333]

15. [phone]

[seabeyond]

14. it isnt about attractiveness, it is about male dominance. women that have experienced it for

decades know this. i am old and i still get it from differing age. it isnt because i am young and hot. seeing if i am fuckable. or acknowledging that i am fuckable.

and men dont get it?

you get it.

how you look at a female friend, sister, mom is seeing the person

when objectifying you are no longer seeing the female as a person

if you dont get why, dehumanizing a person is offensive, then you are not trying very hard

a clue in. women telling you it bothers them, and men saying, regardless of how a woman may feel, fuck it, i get to do what i want.

and the poster saying, dressing for him.... well not. in slippers, jammy bottoms, sweatshirt running into a convenient store. i am really not dressing for a man.

[Mari333]

18. +1000000000000000 well said

I know a lot of men, once they have a daughter, who do change how they see women. well, some of them anyway.

[seabeyond]

23. i know plenty of men that dont do it. i know men once they are aware of it... stop doing it.

it is not part of "male evolutionary, biological, behavior". it is learned. it is desired. it is generally by the ugly ass men that cant get it and they use that look to make them superior when there isn't a chance in hell. it is for the pathetically weak male ego, and only for the ego.

[Mari333]

26. my sons are different then a lot of men I have noticed

they seem to be more aware of the entire person when they meet women, they become friends, etc. they certainly dont ogle and stare, i.e., they are respectful of women and men they meet.
I have met a lot of the younger generation of men and they seem a little more intelligent then the generation I grew up in..lets hope change is on the way concerning gender and a more humane way between people.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

121. the boys that always show up on these topics, determined to OBSTRUCT,

demand their right to dehumanize in the name of the almighty peepee!!

hmmm, they're the scared, threatened cousins to the scared, threatened teapartiers...... Henceforth, we shall call them the peepeepartiers. ;) :rofl:

[redqueen]

143. ...

:rofl:

[anigbrowl]

16. not too impressed with this study

I think the idea is interesting and worth exploring. but n=25 is a very low number on which to base any statistical conclusion. Furthermore, there's no control for gender or sexual orientation. Although there's a strong case that women are sexually objectified to a much greater degree than men (and this could be measured fairly easily) it does strike me as something that affects all people to a certain degree.

Consider the inverse stereotype of a 'hot babe', the 'nerdy guy'. In advertising and media, this stereotype is often presented as less likely to succeed in finding a mate. A man who feels described that stereotype and is doubtful of his ability to attract a sexual partner is likely to have an increased cognitive load as well, thanks to worries about his physical or social abilities.

In fact, almost everyone I've ever known, of either gender and of varying appearance and personality types, has anxieties about whether or not they are attractive, as well as anxieties about whether they are appreciated as individuals or just superficially. So I think there would be a lot of benefits from studying this issue in the round rather than from only a single limited perspective.

[NewJeffCT]

59. good post

women are certainly objectified far more than men, but 25 women is a very small sample to provide definitive data on over 3 billion women in many different cultures around the world.

[SoCalDem]

65. I see the issue as a "youth" issue.

When we are young we tend to see ourselves as the center of the universe, and as we age, we realize that all that time we wasted wondering what others though about us, or how we looked, was wasted.. why? Because everyone else was doing the same thing.. wondering about themselves:)

Years get wasted while people try to figure out how to "get the cute guy/girl", how to look fantastic, how to get into the cool places, get the fun jobs, etc.

[DaveJ]

19. I'm sure the same goes for guys...

Other men who are overtly sexual (not just the macho types but guys who spend alot of time thinking about how they appear to women) have always seemed, to me anyway, to have less cognitive ability, so it's interesting to realize that this probably is also due to a divided psyche.

[Mari333]

21. makes sense to me.

[Lyric]

44. Indeed. I'm glad every day that I'm not considered "hot" by mainstream standards.

It means I can throw off the yoke of fashion and excessive cosmetics/styling, and just focus on staying clean and neat while I attend to important things, like school. Nobody notices or cares. I am valued for my mind and my abilities alone. This makes me very happy. :)

[ulaes]

47. “is likely to increase cognitive load"

They couldn't have picked a better word than load?

[LoZoccolo]

61. What did you do to fight back? n/t

[branders seine]

67. all advertising objectifies every consumer.

capitalism objectifies all of us.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

68. hey, don't ruin a bad argument with a serious fact.

that's such a downer.

Do women objectify men? absolutely, on different issues, and on other terms. Do we give them shit about here on DU? nope. Because we are too busy ogling pornography, no doubt.

[branders seine]

71. did you check out the hooters on that health insurance reform bill?

They put a rise in my premiums I wanna tell you...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

74. cool! please send the site info!

[seabeyond]

73. what? right now. you have issue? where, what? nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

69. I hate the way men are objectified in porn.

If sexes are equal, then why would women believe only women are objectified in porn? They never seem to consider the men in the movies. If women want equality, then by denying that men and women have an equal role as porn stars reveals they don't want or understand true equality at all. Most women want to be objectified. They spend billions on makeup and accessories to be looked at. That doesn't mean they are asking for sexual abuse, but it does mean they are actively wanting to be objectified. Every guy or gal I know likes to be looked at an admired, and yes, even wanted sexually. There is nothing wrong with that. It is being human. I believe more women worry about not being noticed/objectified and therefore ignored. Most women I have known know exactly what they are doing when they are among men. They know how to move, gesture or use a facial expression to entice and to arouse the opposite sex (or the same sex if that's their preference). Very few women are clueless about their affect on men. BTW women, stop reading all of those magazines at checkout counters with lists of things to entice or pleasure a man. All a woman has to do is be present and to be as eager to please her mate as her mate is to please her. And forget all of the games and power struggles. If you want to be equal, then how about being as open sexually with a man as a man is with you. Playing head games or putting up walls only creates division, resentment and will lead to eventual problems. I won't be graphic here, but you don't need 25 ways to pleasure a man. You don't need 10 ways to get a guy to approach you. All of those magazines you read are written by women who haven't a clue what a real man wants or needs. If you want to know just write me. It's not complicated at all...

[Lucian]

75. Objectification can bother men as much as women.

It bothers me how men are supposed to be muscular and "hot" as much as it bothers me that women are supposed to be thin and blonde with large breasts.

On my campus, I've seen women ogle guys just as much as guys ogle women. It works both ways.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. I blame the Matriarchy.

Damn female gaze! I can't escape it!

[mistertrickster]

76. EXCEPT dumb is not sexy. How do they explain that? nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. Dupe, delete

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

82. Poor Usain Bolt must think of himself as a fast-moving object to be scrutinized.

When he's old and no longer able to run 100m in under 10 seconds, his life will be miserable, just like Carl Lewis's is. :sarcasm:

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. a) men aren't the only ones who objectify, men OR women.

"And all the girls walk by, dressed up for each other"- Van Morrison

People don't costume simply for the approval of the opposite sex.

[DaveJ]

91. True, but off topic, IMO

No offense but that observation really doesn't address the point. Yeah people dress up for whatever reason. But the subject is where mental energy is focused. Those who have no intention of having sex might dress up, whereas promiscuous types might dress down. People don't only dress for sex. So it's unrelated.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. "It suggests some women who are objectified by men..."

That was editorializing by the OP.

Those who focus their mental energy on the superficial become superficial.

It's not the fault of men.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

144. That's kind of what I took out of the article

Seriously, did I miss something or not understand it?? I'd like to hear how someone else read it.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. With just a few more 'studies' like this one, I'm sure we'll be able to put a stop to people

being sexually attracted to one another on the basis of appearance.

Good luck!



In the meantime, :popcorn:.

For real fun, why not start a porn thread, too, while you're at it? :shrug:

[AnArmyVeteran]

90. I feel so cheap and violated when I see a woman undressing me with her imagination...

But then I want to mate with her... Am I a victim? Or am I an opportunist? I love sex so can I be exploited if I am getting what I want?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

108. and what of the objectification of mens hands?

While men can look pretty ridiculous attempting to nonchalantly stare at breasts - women can look equally ridiculous attempting to see if a man is wearing a wedding band.

[DaveJ]

92. Why are you ridiculing the study?

I'm just wondering. Clearly women have a valid point. Being attracted to someone and scrutinizing someone are entirely different. The study is based on how women feel being sexually scrutinized. That's bad behavior. My dad taught me to treat women with respect and I didn't understand it for years, I didn't 'score' with nearly as many girls as I would have if my dad had taught me otherwise. But now that I'm grown up I understand where he was coming from, and that he is a good man for teaching me to respect women.

[Greyhound]

93. Hey Dave, you're not expecting an answer, are you? n/t

:kick: & R

[DaveJ]

95. Nah, just want to demonstrate not all guys are like them.

I try not to get involved in flame bait, but in this situation, I'm supporting the OP.

[redqueen]

103. Most guys who refuse to look too closely at their privileges...

(cause God forbid they even begin to consider giving them up) just flat out ignore comments like yours, preferring instead to ridicule the women who bother to try to communicate with them (despite the apparent pointlessness), and the ideas as well (e.g. the Male Gaze).

Wonder if we'll ever stop seeing the "all guys are just like me!" crap.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Um, yeah, he got one.

Got anything else clever to say?

[Greyhound]

123. To you?

Not likely.

[Warren DeMontague]

125. Not surprising, either.

Better watch out, or my spooky male gaze will magically transmogrify you into an "object".

[Warren DeMontague]

98. "Clearly women have a valid point." No, the terms aren't even clearly defined.

There is no consistent definition of "objectification", there is no distinction anyone can come up with between 'being attracted to someone' and 'scrutinizing' them, except maybe 'being attracted to someone' is what *I* do, where as 'scrutinizing' is what *You* do.... The core of the study tells women to feel a certain way about certain ill-defined behaviors or situations, then posits that they have 'cognitive difficulties' because of 'it'... never, specifically, nailing down what 'it' is, except that, of course, 'everybody knows' women are 'objectified' in our society because of the 'patriarchy'.

Basically, someone wanted to grind an axe, and came up with a half-baked sociological 'study' to validate what was clearly a pre-ordained conclusion. Like another recent 'study' that said, we have to regulate porn like crack cocaine, because looking at pictures of naked people fucking creates something called 'erotoxins' in the brain. :eyes:

Also, you say:

I didn't 'score' with nearly as many girls as I would have if my dad had taught me otherwise.

Really? What does that mean? If you had looked at women differently, you would have had sex with more of them? When you talk about 'scoring', are you talking about non-consensual sex? If so, that's not 'scoring', that's rape. And if you ARE talking about consensual sex, what's the problem?

As in: If two consenting adults want to fuck each other, what, precisely, is the problem?

[Indy Lurker]

101. Call out the Thought Police

"Your desirous gaze may be reducing her capacity to think."

Isn't it the woman's opinion of the situation that determines if "objectification" occurs, regardless of the man's actual conduct or intent?

The study so much as says this:

"data suggest about 20 percent of women have a strong propensity toward self-objectification and are thus particularly susceptible to triggers, such as being stared at."

Shouldn't the lesson be we should not let the views of others define who we are.

There will always be knuckleheads who are racist, sexist, classist, etc. The important thing is to not let their opinion impact our self worth.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

114. absolutely !

Women in particular need to practice this self respect and awareness.

We need to practice it especially diligently in the face of the media onslaught of superficial hypersexualized images of women, and even more importantly, the dearth of images showing a variety of female ways of existing.

There is a lack of balance in the public concept of what and who women are..... Many women buy into the sexualization because it is practically the only means imaginable (and it is drilled into our heads so relentlessly) to experience any sense of power and control.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

145. I completely agree. Well said. n/t

[BlancheSplanchnik]

155. Thanks for this. Tons of facts to back up the claim.

glad when I make sense ;)

[LoZoccolo]

110. POSTING IN EPIC THREAD! n/t

[Unvanguard]

111. "For reasons that are not entirely clear"? Really? n/t

[struggle4progress]

112. Nobody benefits from being treated like an object. I don't find the reasons at all mysterious:

we're all social creatures, who evolved for meaningful interactions and relationships. People need genuine social interaction as badly as they need air and water and food and clothing and shelter. Treating other people as objects for other ends -- whether it's because to exploit their labor, or because one enjoys manipulating people or wants to use someone as a sex object -- denies other people of needed opportunities to be themselves and to engage in ordinary social interaction.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

118. well put! The boys who are are here to obstruct and are threatened

by the idea that women are not just a bunch of hot pockets probably won't read your post, however.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. hot pockets?

I don't know what's wrong with your wiring, but that's disgusting.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. I'm sorry. Continue discussing this absolutely ridiculous study.

“Although there is no doubt that women tend to objectify other women, the sexually objectifying gaze is more likely to come from a man,”

That almost entirely meaningless sentence is the premise they were starting from, upon which they have based their allegedly 'scientific' findings-- upon a sample of 25 people. First off, it assumes that there is such a thing as 'objectification' (not that anyone seems to be able to define it) it assumes that there is such a thing as a 'sexually objectifying gaze', and it assumes that men are going to do it (whatever it is) when they look at a woman, but women aren't- or at least, aren't going to as much. AND it assumes that it's the action of the man doing it (from behind a camera, no less-- did the woman know it was a man filming her during the filming? Is the effect supposed to be some sort of Heisenberg quantum deal? :shrug:) caused whatever cognitive effects the women supposedly experienced.

What are the real results? That 25 women did worse on cognitive tests while being filmed by a man, than by another woman. Or they did worse when they knew they had been filmed by a man, than by a woman. Or... what? This thing is a fucking mess. It proves.. something, maybe, but certainly not the pantload of self-validating tautological psychobabble Smith College bullshit being peddled as 'science' by this study.

But, whatever, carry on.

[Dank Nugs]

119. It's a RESPECT thing stupid.

The entire sum of one's existence is a result of the systemic, worldwide oppression of others who is non-white, non-straight, and non-male. Any attempt to extricate one from a lifelong process of indoctrination meant to put that particular individual into power -- is futile. It is one's responsibility to better understand the concept of privilege and the benefits derived from the patriarchy. It is only then, that one can actively work to dismantle patriarchy from within. With your last breath you realize everything you have thought and felt have been conditioned responses to symbols bound up in a language system given to you by your culture. You realize therefore that every response you have ever had had been a response to something that never really WAS; you die hoping you never have to live that lie again.

Seriously, I smoke the dankest nugs on this side of God's Green Earth and I certainly can appreciate a fine, attractive looking woman.

Look to the Reverend King when he quoted the following: I have a dream, that one day that people will not be judged by the colour of their skin, amount of dank nugs consumed, nor their gender but rather be judged by the content of their character.

You want to get laid? Respect the lady. Don't objectify her. Treat her like a person. Think of her as someone's daughter, sister, mother.

You want to make excuses? You're perpetuating the patriarchy. Educate yourself, before you wreck yourself. That said, time to smoke some dank nugs.

[Bonobo]

120. "True to the code"

What's the code, Dank?

I must be following it without knowing cause I also worship at the altar of Dankness.

[Dank Nugs]

122. Binary

From there, ASM, to C/C++/Obj-C/Java/Perl/Python etc.

In order to seize the means of production from the proletariat, one must learn the language of the machines ;)

[Bonobo]

124. That's heavy, man.

But I got zero idea what it means.

[Dank Nugs]

127. Simplification

Computer languages. It's how someone tells a computer what to do, when to do it, etc.


Seizing the means of production was a joking reference to the works of Karl Marx.

[Bonobo]

129. No, I got THAT far, but...

I don't see the relationship between dank nuggets, computer code and the proletariat... Is there one?

It's ok, just have a bong for me and forget about it.

:smoke:

[seabeyond]

141. yes. and then there are those that will protect their domain for all they are worth. whites will

with blacks. i tend to find the men that refuse to give up the control, to see females as people are the very ones that refuse to give up the power, seeing a black as people. they need their safe world of superiority. they truly are the most vulnerable in our society, their ego protected at all cost and ways. they dont get once they let go of the vulnerability, how empowered they are, free and much more comfortable in skin. and.... rewards are there.

welcome to du

[Solly Mack]

135. k/r

[Recursion]

138. Interesting claim from the study author

"Although there is no doubt that women tend to objectify other women, the sexually objectifying gaze is more likely to come from a man," the researchers write.

I really don't know that I buy that, at all.

[DailyGrind51]

139. Women should boycott the fashion and cosmetics industries promoting objectivication.