[W:517] Sexual Hypocrisy

kitsune said:

This is the problem with Heteros. It's sex sex sex 24/7. It's all they frigging think about. There ARE other things to think about, but you'd never know it living in a Hetero society.

Click to expand...

LOL - and gay people don't think about sex as frequently as straight people? You are full of rage, but sill adorable

ecofarm said:

Fine. Objectifying humans is always sexual. Objectifying animals is merely pathological and a symptom of the objectification of humans. This is why the abuse of animals is the biggest red flag for sociopathy. All human objectification is sexual.

Art is not objectification. Art is the expression of the full range of human emotions.

Click to expand...

No, my reference to animals had nothing to do with zoophilia. We objectify animals when we kill them for sport or raise them for food.
And as for art, yes, "Art is the expression of the full range of human emotions" -- by way of objectifying those emotions in the various artistic mediums.

Verb

objectify (third-person singular simple present objectifies, present participle objectifying, simple past and past participle objectified)

1. to make something (such as an abstract idea) possible to be perceived by the senses quotations ▲

2. to treat as something objectively real quotations ▲

3. to treat as a mere object and deny the dignity of quotations ▲

Synonyms: reify, thingify

Derived terms: objectification

Click to expand...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/objectify

Angel said:

We objectify animals when we kill them for sport or raise them for food.

Click to expand...

False. Man has long been a part of the ecosystem, an integral part. There is no such thing as a virgin forest; all forests evolved with man. Taking man out of a habitat is no different than removing lions or elephants or bears. The habitat is what it is because of man taking part in its development.

This has become even more true in modern times when man has artificially limited all habitats. Given this artificial limitation, populations must be controlled for the good of the habitat and even the larger ecosystem in which the habitat exists.

When a hunter takes an animal, they are performing a timeless service to the Earth, maintaining a balanced ecosystem and benefiting all life. The death of that animal is a sacrifice that can be felt by humans; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

In this ritual hunters take great reverence. They understand their place in the ecosystem, their duty to the habitat and the gruesomeness of nature's demands. For if we abandoned what is arguably our creation, it would crumble. Our artificially truncated habitats, be they in Africa or the US, must be tended in a sustainable and ecologically ethical manner.

The death of the animal represents all that and more. It's intellectually crippled to not see what I have shown.

ecofarm said:

False. Man has long been a part of the ecosystem, an integral part. There is no such thing as a virgin forest; all forests evolved with man. Taking man out of a habitat is no different than removing lions or elephants or bears. The habitat is what it is because of man taking part in its development.

This has become even more true in modern times when man has artificially limited all habitats. Given this artificial limitation, populations must be controlled for the good of the habitat and even the larger ecosystem in which the habitat exists.

When a hunter takes an animal, they are performing a timeless service to the Earth, maintaining a balanced ecosystem and benefiting all life. The death of that animal is a sacrifice that can be felt by humans; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

In this ritual hunters take great reverence. They understand their place in the ecosystem, their duty to the habitat and the gruesomeness of nature's demands. For if we abandoned what is arguably our creation, it would crumble. Our artificially truncated habitats, be they in Africa or the US, must be tended in a sustainable and ecologically ethical manner.

The death of the animal represents all that and more. It's intellectually crippled to not see what I have shown.

Click to expand...

Your post is eloquent and irrelevant to the point we are mooting -- objectifying animals.
Am I "intellectually crippled" not to agree with you? Bene.
I suggest you take your pointless quibble about the meaning of a word to someone else's door. I'm closing mine.

Angel said:

Your post is eloquent and irrelevant to the point we are mooting -- objectifying animals.
Am I "intellectually crippled" not to agree with you? Bene.
I suggest you take your pointless quibble about the meaning of a word to someone else's door. I'm closing mine.

Click to expand...

The animal is not objectified. Its place in the ecosystem, its purpose, its meaning, its life is recognized and celebrated.

Being unable to see that is intellectually crippled. I know the only feasible counter argument and you don't. Because you won't try to see.

When it comes to sex, men have always been and will always be hypocrites in all societies and in all cultures. Nothing to do with any particular culture at all. The biological urge rules. Protect my woman, have my way with yours. But as the song goes:

So further explain how everybody being made "equal" and thus interchangeable like a light bulb isn't objectification. It's corporate culture at its best (worst).

SDET said:

So further explain how everybody being made "equal" and thus interchangeable like a light bulb isn't objectification. It's corporate culture at its best (worst).

Click to expand...

No one believes anyone is equal. Some people support equal rights or opportunity (those being inherently linked).

Your "concept" of "equality" is not held by anyone and constitutes a strawman of unknown purpose. That's why you require a scare quotation in the statement. You know your definition of equality is not one that anyone holds about any two people.

Through time people change value depending on how hard they're willing to work. No one believes what you claim and no one could because our values change.

Your premise is completely bs. At best your nonsense is failed business theory from a low level class taught by a politician not an economist or professional. I can smell the fail in the position and it's pungent.

I think it's important to note there is no link between objectification and art. Art is not objectification. There is no sociopath art. Their work is of historical not fine art value. Sociopaths lack the requisite empathy to produce art of significant artistic value.

Sociopaths can't art. Because art is not objectification and objectification is all they have. They can mimic but that's discernible on examination. They're not capable of creating art.

Note: they can fake it. There are plenty of sociopaths pretending to be artists via mimicry. But if one looks close, they don't create.

ecofarm said:

No one believes anyone is equal. Some people support equal rights or opportunity (those being inherently linked).

Your "concept" of "equality" is not held by anyone and constitutes a strawman of unknown purpose. That's why you require a scare quotation in the statement. You know your definition of equality is not one that anyone holds about any two people.

Through time people change value depending on how hard they're willing to work. No one believes what you claim and no one could because our values change.

Your premise is completely bs. At best your nonsense is failed business theory from a low level class taught by a politician not an economist or professional. I can smell the fail in the position and it's pungent.

Click to expand...

It comes from decades in the "cubical farm". The passive-aggressive culture is a direct result of the risk of being penalized for saying what one really thinks. Since one can't criticize "disadvantaged" members of protected classes, the alternative is to just artfully exclude unproductive people from one's projects.

SDET said:

It comes from decades in the "cubical farm". The passive-aggressive culture is a direct result of the risk of being penalized for saying what one really thinks. Since one can't criticize "disadvantaged" members of protected classes, the alternative is to just artfully exclude unproductive people from one's projects.

Click to expand...

That's all crybaby crap. Who wants to listen to that whining and blaming? Butch up.

ecofarm said:

That's all crybaby crap.

Click to expand...

Eh, not really. One gets used to it after awhile. I learned more about how to function in the corporate environment from Cubans in Cuba than anywhere else. Just get used to telling people what they want to hear as opposed to what you really think. Women are always better than men, if the data says otherwise, suppress it. Also, if you criticize work from the offshore team, you're anti-diversity.

Learn Newspeak.

SDET said:

Eh, not really. One gets used to it after awhile. I learned more about how to function in the corporate environment from Cubans in Cuba than anywhere else. Just get used to telling people what they want to hear as opposed to what you really think. Women are always better than men, if the data says otherwise, suppress it.

Click to expand...

A nice attempt at irony but lame.

No one is learning about business or economics or international relations from anecdotal evidence via sex tourism provided by a sobbing anti capitalist. It's too ridiculous. It's Poeish.

Good day.

soylentgreen said:

Oh! Look, a male has just managed to figure out women are sexually objectified.

And laughably he blames it on pop culture.

Like it hasn't been around since, well, forever.

Click to expand...

Well that's not exactly accurate. the message I got is that he's talking about hypocrisy. We constantly hear this platitude that we shouldn't sexually objectified people. I think it's a core the intention is good. People are worth more than what they can provide based on their sexual aspects. But then we see the same people using images of sexy people to mass market things to us.

I don't think it's exclusive to women. It seems to be much more blatant with women.

How can we ask people young people who are the future to not sexually objectify women if we're doing it constantly. Actions speak louder than words and this is especially true when actions go against the words.

There is some part of this that is subconscious. We do have the baser instinct to mate and procreate. but I think some of these sexual objectification we see feeds and nourishes this baser instinct. And I don't necessarily believe that the instinct is wrong I think it just needs to be kept into perspective.

I get what the Op was getting at. I think the problem I'm sexual objectification much deeper than people want to think about. Just cause problems particularly among young impressionable people. How often do we hear of a young woman who has such a poor self-image she engages in destructive activities?

Few people want to address this, lots of people love to complain about it.

Northern Light said:

The real hypocrisy is that we live in a prudish society that is simultaneously afraid to admit its very sexually desirous nature.

That some people objectify while others deplore objectification isn't hypocrisy, it is just a contradiction inherent in our pop culture.

Subject-object consciousness comes from consumption of pop culture because there is no real engagement. It's just one person consuming the goods (including image) of another person. Subject-subject consciousness, where you really get to know someone, bears out in interpersonal relationships.

Click to expand...

Do not read a post like this while high.

CLAX1911 said:

Well that's not exactly accurate. the message I got is that he's talking about hypocrisy. We constantly hear this platitude that we shouldn't sexually objectified people. I think it's a core the intention is good. People are worth more than what they can provide based on their sexual aspects. But then we see the same people using images of sexy people to mass market things to us.

I don't think it's exclusive to women. It seems to be much more blatant with women.

How can we ask people young people who are the future to not sexually objectify women if we're doing it constantly. Actions speak louder than words and this is especially true when actions go against the words.

There is some part of this that is subconscious. We do have the baser instinct to mate and procreate. but I think some of these sexual objectification we see feeds and nourishes this baser instinct. And I don't necessarily believe that the instinct is wrong I think it just needs to be kept into perspective.

I get what the Op was getting at. I think the problem I'm sexual objectification much deeper than people want to think about. Just cause problems particularly among young impressionable people. How often do we hear of a young woman who has such a poor self-image she engages in destructive activities?

Few people want to address this, lots of people love to complain about it.

Click to expand...

Ok, this actually does make sense.

lurchadams said:

LOL - and gay people don't think about sex as frequently as straight people? You are full of rage, but sill adorable

Click to expand...

Of course we do. But straight people characterize us as thinking about nothing else, completely ignoring what a hyper sexualized heterosexual society they have created for themselves. And thank you. I've been feeling very fierce lately. Glad it hasn't impacted my adorability


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

kitsune said:

Of course we do. But straight people characterize us as thinking about nothing else, completely ignoring what a hyper sexualized heterosexual society they have created for themselves. And thank you. I've been feeling very fierce lately. Glad it hasn't impacted my adorability


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

So you thought you'd do the same thing you're accusing straight people of doing?

Payback is a "b", amirite?

CLAX1911 said:

Well that's not exactly accurate. the message I got is that he's talking about hypocrisy. We constantly hear this platitude that we shouldn't sexually objectified people. I think it's a core the intention is good. People are worth more than what they can provide based on their sexual aspects. But then we see the same people using images of sexy people to mass market things to us....

Click to expand...

Hallelujah! Someone gets it! Thank you. Some of the posts in this thread are from Mars!
What's more, this is the third thread of mine you've rescued from misunderstanding and derailment. I appreciate it, I appreciate you.
I am in your debt.

Anyway, the portion of your post quoted here hits the nail on the head. Our culture is self-contradictory and hypocritical in this matter of sexual objectification.
When it comes to sex, cognitive dissonance is rampant in America.

Northern Light said:

The real hypocrisy is that we live in a prudish society that is simultaneously afraid to admit its very sexually desirous nature.

That some people objectify while others deplore objectification isn't hypocrisy, it is just a contradiction inherent in our pop culture.

Subject-object consciousness comes from consumption of pop culture because there is no real engagement. It's just one person consuming the goods (including image) of another person. Subject-subject consciousness, where you really get to know someone, bears out in interpersonal relationships.

Click to expand...

Hypocrisy is a form of contradiction, isn't it? Self-contradiction. No?

Angel said:

Hallelujah! Someone gets it! Thank you. Some of the posts in this thread are from Mars!
What's more, this is the third thread of mine you've rescued from misunderstanding and derailment. I appreciate it, I appreciate you.
I am in your debt.

Click to expand...

No worries I like what you post. You are rather short and to the point and I respect that.

Anyway, the portion of your post quoted here hits the nail on the head. Our culture is self-contradictory and hypocritical in this matter of sexual objectification.
When it comes to sex, cognitive dissonance is rampant in America.

Click to expand...

I think this is because of our culture's high value on instant gratification. We know what we should do but the ease at which we can gratify various desires is for lack of a better word comforting.

If you have ever had to break an addiction you understand that comfort of knowing you can just go right back to it if you need to. I remember when I quit smoking. I had to keep a pack of cigarettes with me. It was about four months before I threw them away.

Unfortunately sexual hypocrisy is nothing new, in some regards we have ourselves to blame in the persistent pendulum right to left then repeat of influences into cultural standards.

CLAX1911 said:

I don't think it's exclusive to women. It seems to be much more blatant with women.

Click to expand...

It is only more blatant with women than with men when you ignore the differences in our psychology. Men respond more strongly to visual stimulation. With women, it is merely more complicated and subtle: they respond to dominance and status. It's not something sexy to say in this day and age, but I am an economist: I trust your choices will reveal your preferences more so than your words. Women flock in mass to buy books and watch a few movies featuring a billionaire businessman that takes great pleasure in imposing his every whim onto a woman. And, of course, the main character is the one that tames him -- and, yes, taming is exactly the right word. Erotica essentially is what porn looks like if the content matters more than the form, in spite of the aura of sophistication that comes with the packaging of a story in a book.

CLAX1911 said:

How can we ask people young people who are the future to not sexually objectify women if we're doing it constantly.

Click to expand...

Ben Shapiro has made a great point in this respect. It used to be the case that you were taught as a man to protect women around you, to respect them and socially acceptable context for sex was limited to the confine of marriage. The idea probably can be broadened to committed relationships without damage as the intuition seems to be that you shouldn't treat others or yourself as disposable when you make a choice regarding something which is supposed to be intimate such as sexuality. In his own words, it's not because men behaved like pigs in the 1950s, that asking women to be pigs today in the name of gender equality is a good idea.

The fundamental problem, as I see it, is the casual treatment of sex. The one-nighter you drag from the bar back to your place or their place might be enjoyable, but the essence of the one-nighter is that she or he is disposable. You actually plan on not keeping them around, except as a last resort because they do a slightly better job than your own hands. A very curious part of this issue is that the whole point of this plan is that you both are in agreement that you're using each other as a sophisticated means of jacking off and there would, in fact, be a problem if either of you treated the other as a person and not as a third hand to jack off. So, you have to put yourself in the position of the sexual equivalent of a disposable razor blade at the same time you put the other person in that position.

You can't treat other people with a high degree of reverence and respect when all of this is okay with you. Your whole modus operandi is built around the exact opposite view.

CLAX1911 said:

Well that's not exactly accurate. the message I got is that he's talking about hypocrisy. We constantly hear this platitude that we shouldn't sexually objectified people. I think it's a core the intention is good. People are worth more than what they can provide based on their sexual aspects. But then we see the same people using images of sexy people to mass market things to us.

I don't think it's exclusive to women. It seems to be much more blatant with women.

How can we ask people young people who are the future to not sexually objectify women if we're doing it constantly. Actions speak louder than words and this is especially true when actions go against the words.

There is some part of this that is subconscious. We do have the baser instinct to mate and procreate. but I think some of these sexual objectification we see feeds and nourishes this baser instinct. And I don't necessarily believe that the instinct is wrong I think it just needs to be kept into perspective.

I get what the Op was getting at. I think the problem I'm sexual objectification much deeper than people want to think about. Just cause problems particularly among young impressionable people. How often do we hear of a young woman who has such a poor self-image she engages in destructive activities?

Few people want to address this, lots of people love to complain about it.

Click to expand...

The fact that he relates it to pop culture tells me he neither understands or cares about objectification. His aim is to blame present culture for problems and use objectification as an excuse for that.

As usual it is his dishonest approach that i object to.

Pop culture is not the problem with sexual objectification of women. All you need do to know that is answer the one question, what is the oldest profession in the world?

soylentgreen said:

The fact that he relates it to pop culture tells me he neither understands or cares about objectification. His aim is to blame present culture for problems and use objectification as an excuse for that.

As usual it is his dishonest approach that i object to.

Pop culture is not the problem with sexual objectification of women. All you need do to know that is answer the one question, what is the oldest profession in the world?

Click to expand...

I don't think he said pop culture was the entire problem I think he was saying it was adding to the problem rather than subtracting from it