is the double entendre intended?

yes.

so that means i'm bad at sex.

you're right but i don't get how you knew :(

on the other hand, what you just said is a good sign.
life's confusing.

Two things I'm certain of: I sexually objectify. I'm not sexist.

That's not possible.
Unless you have a very different notion of what "objectifying" means than the one used in gender studies.
That's not possible (2).
Everyone's sexist, in different degrees.

tr.v. ob·jec·ti·fied, ob·jec·ti·fy·ing, ob·jec·ti·fies 1. To present or regard as an object: "Because we have objectified animals, we are able to treat them impersonally" (Barry Lopez).

To objectify is to dehumanize.

Dehumanization often ignores the target's individuality (i.e., the creative and interesting aspects of his or her personality) and prevents one from showing compassion towards stigmatized groups.

To treat/view a living being object, deprived of individuality, personality and will, not quite equal to you but as something to exist to satisfy your needs. To objectify is pretty much the core of all sexism (and racism, slavery, classism etc.)

People often confuse objetification with sexual attraction because they are portrayed as the same thing in our culture, but that's a misconception. These things are not mutually exclusive.

that's a ridiculous straw man argument

if people think it's easy being a disc jockey how come companies who use our images in advertising can't even figure it out




sick mix bro

what's it called when people keep using the accusation of straw man fallacy to avoid the real discussion? that must be a term for that one.

there's also a term for that fallacy when you try to accuse the person saying something (crazy, aggressive, exaggerated, alcoholic etc.) rather than adressing the real subject of the discussion... what is it again?

or when they try to divert attention to something else instead of commenting on data and facts that have been posed.

the only thing i've been talking about since i posted in this thread is that you suck at persuading your intended audience.

i said that instead of educating people you alienate them and trying to blame them for it hides the fact that you suck at what you claim you're trying to do.

it's like a shitty musician who cries about the public's lack of good taste.

really, you're terrible at it, don't blame the people who "don't listen."

This thread..

Are you honestly saying that you've never objectified people you were sexually attracted to? And no there's no scale, I'm not sexist.

You think i'm some sort of lecturer who's supposed to play a mother theresa before assholes attacking me? seriously, you've already been there and i already said this to you: i don't give a shit what you think, you're a sexist, offensive jerk because you choose to, because you keep making excuses about it, not because some woman isn't capable of "educating" you correctly.

once again: i have no obligation to be nice to people who aren't nice to me.

This whole "be a nice girl hoping that someday we might want to cooperate" doesn't work anymore, try something new.

i have been educated and am still being educated by a lot of great women, so i would never conflate "women" with your own terrible incompetence--which you insist on covering up under the mantle of proclaimed feminism. please, you're not a category of people, you're a single individual dolt.

Of course I'm not saying that, it's hard to say where it begins and where it ends. But I wasn't brought up to divide a man into pieces and parts, I wasn't taught to view them as objects for my pleasure, I didn't grow up seeing objectified images of men in every corner of the city. I wasn't taught that it's ok to think of them as less than human, but to view them as a whole, human being. Personally, I can't even be attracted to someone I don't know based on their looks. I've been told that most men find that almost impossible to believe, and I can understand why.

Women are exposed to very different messages in that sense.

On the other hand, I was taught to view the female body in an cruel, analytical way and objectify every bit of it, even in myself.

i said woman not women.
it's kind of annoying when people have to misinterpret what you say in order to keep being a pain in the ass.
i don't represent feminism as a whole.
therefore i speak about it whichever way I WANT and you have no say about it.
you keep talking about HOW i'm saying something in order to avoid WHAT I'm saying - isn't there a fallacy for that too?
oh well, i must be doing something that really bothers you because you just won't leave me alone.

i quoted verbatim your mother theresa rant, there you said "women", and have edited after the fact. amazing the lengths you will go to cover up your bullshit. but eh, that's what drunks do! deny and hide.

alright, i take no further pleasure in this exchange, which has become a sad spectacle of lunacy, so you can declare yourself victorious while i go elsewhere. good luck recruiting converts.

i edited because english is not my native language and sometimes i make mistakes duh

english is not my native language either.

I rock the spanishhhhh

yeah so i can see how you're not at all interested in the debate as you claim to be
and as usual#@#!## is very good at transforming the debate into a jerkfest without ever addressing whats being discussed and conveniently leaving when thats questioned

Out of interest, how many Camels do Arab girls go for these days?

I bought mine for a pack of 20

Huzzah!

What about the statement

"There sure are a ton of beautiful girls wearing glasses in the library today!"

as a glasses-wearer since age 3, I like the studious look on a lady.

Oh, now I'm touching myself.

NOW it got interesting.

Western society has progressed a fair bit. That's a different reality, not nowadays'.
I don't know if it's impossible but I think it's definitely not the case for most women.

That is a shame, I was taught to honor, cherish, and revere the female body as a more beautiful equal. You know who taught me that? My GRANDFATHER, a penis-carrying man ;)

"Personally, I can't even be attracted to someone I don't know based on their looks. I've been told that most men find that almost impossible to believe, and I can understand why."

You should understand why because it is BIOLOGICAL knox. as far as the human species goes, it is the female that normally gives consent to sexual relations. It is the females that choose their mate, more so than the male.(of course there are exceptions, of which rape and incest are some of the most vile)
Men are by biological nature, visually attracted to women.

Throughout our evolutionary history, regardless of matriarchy or patriarchy, the male in most cultures has to try his luck with many women, hoping one finds him worthy enough for a mate. There is a reason that it is the woman's prerogative in western culture to say "yes" or "no". In arranged marriage cultures, it is ussually the mothers who make the determination, thereby granting power to the female once again.

and yes, most well-raised men respect when a woman says NO, they may not like it, but they respect it.

Biology is a motherfucker. It is the same reason most women have a different experience when it comes to erotic arousal than most men. men are visually aroused almost to a fault. It is how the male brain is wired, and all men find different things sexually arousing. That is not to say women are not visually aroused by men, but they have capabilities of self-control that are inherent in them to allow a female to pick a worthy mate to have good quality children, and a co-parent to raise those children.

That same biology is why males of ANY species tend to be more aggressive, both against other males and indeed females, and even young (infanticide)..

This is what I was trying to get into knox's head when she was saying men can't relate to, empathize, or understand the experience of women in regards to fear of other men. I do not walk around "afraid" of other men, this is true, but as a man I must size up the intentions and potential for conflict between any and EVERY male human I encounter. The wrong look, the wrong gesture, a complete misunderstanding, or just the wrong place at the wrong time can get a man beaten severely, stabbed, shot, or even killed by another man who may be a perfect stranger. This is a BIOLOGICAL reality of Darwinian evolution. Males must dominate other males in order to attract females. Further, females even if they don't admit it, tend to prefer either (1) uber-Type A males or (2) uber- Type B males as an antithesis to the aggressive male. Women need to accept that men are often jerks because women even if just subconsciously like aggressive, assertive, or asshole men. When women like muffin soft men, it is a protest to the aggressive male, but it is still giving power to male aggression by responding directly.

As a man, and a male animal, I have to always be on the look out for other males. Some men I've known are no longer alive with us because of other men's aggression. Others have been stabbed, beaten, or maimed. While I have been spared, it is because I am alert and diligent to avoid these kinds primal altercations. I am sorry that knox missed my point, but sexual assault on women stems from a primal male aggression, and is indeed the epitome of violence. This same primal violence is not spared to other men. So men generally have as much of a biological imperative to be cautious around other men as much as women do to protect themselves from rape or sexual violence. Primal violence is a universal struggle, it doesn't have a gender bias.

This "biology" thing has been debunked over and over.
I'm not going to get into detail, but it would be considered "biological" to do a lot of shit we don't do.

People would use the "biological" excuse to explain everything from rape to murder.

However, biological doesn't mean ethical.

Culture plays the biggest role in gender relations and culture changes.

But we don't even need to go there.

What's evident here is that nobody commented on any of the data or watched any of the videos I asked them to. Nobody even bothers answers most of the points I mentioned.

Sadly, this is just a typical reaction of people when faced with questioning about their own privilege, a privilege they refuse to even acknowledge.

someone is a bit preachy.

That is such bullshit and you're contradicting yourself.

This biology talk is such a cop-out. Do you personally eat other humans? Kill them? Go out hunting for animals? Put your finger up your ass and sniff it in front of other people? Do you piss to mark your territory, masturbate in public, throw shit? Did mother cut the umbilical cord with her teeth?

You're not living in a highly evolved society, with changing laws, structures and technology? Are you not la highly social being who uses a toilet to poo and clothes to go out and follows several social rules?

Are you not part of a species that has had and has many cultures? Laws? Morals? Boundaries?

That just is the lamest excuse not to confront your own sexism.

You do know racists use that excuse too? Saying that the human brain is programmed to discriminate? For some reason, I can't imagine you taking this kind of bullshit as a valid excuse in this case...

One moment, you're all nice guys who don't mean anything bad and get really insulted if they are "accused" of doing anything demeaning to women, and then suddenly you're a wild beast that cannot be tamed or changed that argument becomes convenient.

Embarassing.

liar. there's no way you're the only lady alive that doesn't love some yanni



a real live greek god

my female dog doesn't want to drink water unless mike goes to get some first. because then she gets to push him out of the way and drink all of it. bitch.

if males are more aggressive in every species how come my bitch is so bloodthirsty and damn rude

I felt something like he smell of cheap perfume.
He doesn't look like a wild beast struggling to contain his desire to destroy, rape, kill and conquer. Not with that carefully blow dryed hair and perfectly arranged moustache.

suchfriends just speaking truth. Trying to have a reasoning session with knox is tough, since we are not all sharing a fattie boombatty.

The truth that has been pretty much debunked by pretty much everything that we know today about gender roles.
That convenient truth that can only be claimed by ignoring all facts.

You don't want to reason, because if you did, you wouldn't ignore facts.
If you call this an attempt of discussion, this would be a truly intelectually dishonest one from your part.

I'm just gonna guess you haven't seen the videos you said you would because there is no hope.

Maybe you should run into the woods, beat your chest, or smash a can of beer on your forehad and just call it the day.