Prostitution

1…1718202223…29

Comments

  • unifiedscene
    unifiedscene Posts: 462
    angelica wrote:
    If people seek a body/mind/soul connection, then one must understand that soul exists on a level beyond physicality and time/space. In our imaginal realms of perception. Therefore, to act from a place of holism, and body/mind/soul, one becomes very conscientious about how they act in Spirit. One understands that to in any way degrade someone in Spirit, from the Truth of who they are in Spirit (God/Goddess) one knows they automatically remove themselves from a level of mind/body/soul awareness.

    They become aware the potency of the Spiritual and rarefied level of perception, which is why holistic perception and certainly mind/body/spiritual sex is very rare.

    This is why it's absolutely inconsistent to have this degree of perception, and relationship to all things, and to objectify someone.

    I think I read this in one of the poems Jim Morrison wrote on LSD.
    she was underwhelmed, if that's a word
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    mammasan wrote:
    But haven't you and other been saying that physical attraction alone is objectification.
    No. Back when I was asked the difference between attraction and objectification, I clearly stated it's just being realistic when we acknowledge we find someone hot. I then went on to say it's where we take it from there...do we tune out the humanity of the person for personal gratification, or do we acknowledge the whole person.

    I admitted attraction to others in that first post...male/female. And I've since fully openly admitted dressing flamboyantly, "sexy" and to attract. I think where it went off track was on the level of fantasy.........

    I don't know what others are saying.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    mammasan wrote:
    But haven't you and other been saying that physical attraction alone is objectification.


    *I* said that, as a true form of objectification. if the appreciation does not go beyond the physical, it would be by definition objectification...b/c you are seeing the individual from a purely physical, object, form.

    and i do hope you realize, that of course it oftentimes quickly moves on from that.....or it dosn't at all simply b/c it can't, or serves no purpose. i think i wrote ssaid response to jeff. but that's only my opinion on it. but i think you already realize my thoughts on it in any case. :)



    again, if all i have is a picture...or a quick glance in the train....all i can do is physically appreciate/objectify. there is no furthering of the dynamic, no relationship, etc. how can we develop further appreciation of a person if ALL we know is their surface? we can't. thus why, truly...we all objectify ourselves and objectify others to some degree. that does not insinuate that we never fully embrace ourselves or others....just admit that we DO pay attnetion to surfaces as only as well.


    hereya go:
    jeffbr wrote:
    What is the difference between physical attraction and objectification? I know there are biological and anthropological needs for attraction for mating purposes. So we aren't going to get rid of physical attraction as driver ever. But where does that cross into objectification? Or are they the same thing?

    decides2dream wrote:
    i think the idea is if physical attraction ONLY remains on the level of phsycial attraction and nothing more....it is objectification. your appreciation is at surface-level only. when that physical attraction develops into some sort of interaction, appreciation for the person as a whole...acknoledgment of the whole person, that it is more.


    obviously, we CAN'T possibly take 'physical attraction' to another level - and i don't mean simply seually - with EVERYone we happen to find physically attractive. we simply don't have the time or inclination to develop relationships with evry single person we lay eyes on and find attractive, and it would serve no purpose. so many, many times....our 'appreciation' remians at the objectification level, and as it should, a-ok.


    i think the 'problem' with objectification is if that is soley it, always....or it becomes problematic for someone to go beyond 'object' and see/appreciate the whole person.


    in this day and age of visual assault of pictures, male and female...pretty damn difficult NOT to 'objectify' to some degree. and again, nothing inherently wrong in it.


    and...time for lunch! :)
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • unifiedscene
    unifiedscene Posts: 462
    angelica wrote:
    I didn't say or imply this.

    edit: I did say that when we evolve to a state of holism, then objectification and prostitution will be impossible. No moral judgement...a statement.

    I also said that I personally cannot tune out what brings a woman to a dark place to objectify herself to act in porn, and find that sexual. No moral judgment...rather my personal response, prior to judgment.

    If you mean attraction happens inevitably, then yes. Objectification is a different matter.

    You seem to think evolution is advancement... so if you expect that evolution will eradicate objectification, that indicates it will be an improvement.

    Ah, but this is what no one here has been able to explain in a way that makes sense... how are attraction and objectification truly different? I see a lot of people here arguing that just looking at someone and thinking they look sexy is objectifying them because it is just about their outside, not their person. So what is attraction then? Saturnal essentially said the same thing but added that he didn't act on it, and you all started praising him. Mammasan and I have been saying that from the beginning, but people are still fighting us on it.
    she was underwhelmed, if that's a word
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    angelica wrote:
    No. Back when I was asked the difference between attraction and objectification, I clearly stated it's just being realistic when we acknowledge we find someone hot. I then went on to say it's where we take it from there...do we tune out the humanity of the person for personal gratification, or do we acknowledge the whole person.

    I admitted attraction to others in that first post...male/female. And I've since fully openly admitted dressing flamboyantly, "sexy" and to attract. I think where it went off track was on the level of fantasy.........

    I don't know what others are saying.

    I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    unifiedscene wrote:
    You seem to think evolution is advancement... so if you expect that evolution will eradicate objectification, that indicates it will be an improvement.
    Advancement is advancement. What I did say is that the only difference between levels of evolution is the person's level of subjective pain. So, for example, one at a holistic level lives with a lot of joy and bliss. One on other levels, more "good"/"bad".
    Ah, but this is what no one here has been able to explain in a way that makes sense... how are attraction and objectification truly different? I see a lot of people here arguing that just looking at someone and thinking they look sexy is objectifying them because it is just about their outside, not their person. So what is attraction then? Saturnal essentially said the same thing but added that he didn't act on it, and you all started praising him. Mammasan and I have been saying that from the beginning, but people are still fighting us on it.

    Attraction is the natural response. Objectification, as I am using the term, what we do with that attraction... when you look at someone like an object, without regard for who they are as a person (thoughts/feelings/intuitions), and in this context, further, when one tunes the humanity out, and chooses to seek sexual gratification for themselves, with this "object", on whatever level one does so, whether physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    mammasan wrote:
    I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.
    Even though I am directly saying that I didn't think or state it???

    You can believe what you want. Feel free to use my direct quotes. As I said earlier, I'm not responsible for what people read into what I say.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    angelica wrote:
    Even though I am directly saying that I didn't think or state it???

    You can believe what you want. Feel free to use my direct quotes. As I said earlier, I'm not responsible for what people read into what I say.


    Don't get pissy because people misconstrue what you say, maybe you should clarify your points a little better, instead of infusing them with mountains of New Age Psychological theories.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    mammasan wrote:
    Don't get pissy because people misconstrue what you say, maybe you should clarify your points a little better, instead of infusing them with mountains of New Age Psychological theories.
    I told both you and jeffbr that you were not understanding what I said. If you choose to keep up false beliefs of what I say, it's out of my hands.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    angelica wrote:
    I told both you and jeffbr that you were not understanding what I said. If you choose to keep up false beliefs of what I say, it's out of my hands.

    The problem is that it is impossible to understand what you say because your posts are like a enigma. I feel as if someone took an Eckhart Tolle book put in a blender and then splashed the contents all over my computer screen.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    mammasan wrote:
    The problem is that it is impossible to understand what you say because your posts are like a enigma. I feel as if someone took an Eckhart Tolle book put in a blender and then splashed the contents all over my computer screen.
    Here is my original response on the different between attraction and objectifying:
    angelica wrote:
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I am curious, what exactly do people think is the difference between appreciating someone's beauty and objectifying them?

    It's great to appreciate someone's beauty! I do this all the time, male or female. As long as you see them as human beings with feelings, and attempt to connect with their thoughts, feelings and intuitions as well.
    If that's a little too complicated for you, I'll try to dumb it down the next time...............;)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    mammasan wrote:
    The problem is that it is impossible to understand what you say because your posts are like a enigma. I feel as if someone took an Eckhart Tolle book put in a blender and then splashed the contents all over my computer screen.
    or this one:
    angelica wrote:
    For me the issue isn't with someone not appreciating my ability to look attractive. I personally love that attention. It goes beyond my skill/ability, or that of other women's, to the intentions of the man (in this case ) in question. Does he appreciate me as a human being, and for my ability to look attractive/hot? Or does he look at me as an image or shell/object, there to do his bidding? Does he then tune out my feedback to the contrary? (this has happened to me a LOT)
    .....too difficult to understand?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    mammasan wrote:
    The problem is that it is impossible to understand what you say because your posts are like a enigma. I feel as if someone took an Eckhart Tolle book put in a blender and then splashed the contents all over my computer screen.
    hmmmmm....
    angelica wrote:
    If you find them to be hot, obviously that's just reality. It depends on what you do with those feelings. Do you objectify them and purely relate to their physical shell? Or do you think about them as a person. You may not know them individually, but most people have a degree of empathy, and can relate to the commonalities between others....We can empathize with how they might feel in different situations. Or, again, we can see them purely as a sexual fantasy which revolves around our sexual desires..ie: in fantasy, where the person is there to do our bidding.

    Seems to me, if someone is looking to understand, it's all right there...
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    angelica wrote:
    Here is my original response on the different between attraction and objectifying:

    If that's a little too complicated for you, I'll try to dumb it down the next time...............;)

    So in essence you are saying that if I do not connect with the women on some spiritual or emotional level then it is not OK. So I ask how can you connect, on these levels, with a complete stranger or a picture in a magazine.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    mammasan wrote:
    I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.
    I'm not saying physical attraction is objectification. The objectification happens on other levels...emotional/spiritual levels, not the physical level. I can't be sure, but I believe I initially responded to someone talking about seeing a woman and then imagining themselves in an intimate situation with that woman. There's a difference between getting physically aroused when you see an attractive woman and imagining having sex with her.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Saturnal wrote:
    I'm not saying physical attraction is objectification. The objectification happens on other levels...emotional/spiritual levels, not the physical level. I can't be sure, but I believe I initially responded to someone talking about seeing a woman and then imagining themselves in an intimate situation with that woman. There's a difference between getting physically aroused when you see an attractive woman and imagining having sex with her.

    There is a difference but neither of them means that you don't respect her as a person. If I sit at work and fantasize about going home and having sex with my girlfriend am I objectifying her.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    mammasan wrote:
    So in essence you are saying that if I do not connect with the women on some spiritual or emotional level then it is not OK. So I ask how can you connect, on these levels, with a complete stranger or a picture in a magazine.
    I am saying I support everyone living their lives to the best of their ability and to their own purposes. When I say I LOVE and embrace all of life, I mean that.

    I know you'll make the right decisions for you, which is all anyone can ask.

    I haven't once presumed what people should or should not do. I have spoken for myself, and for the holistic perspective. Also, I have defined objectification as I understand it.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • unifiedscene
    unifiedscene Posts: 462
    Saturnal wrote:
    I'm not saying physical attraction is objectification. The objectification happens on other levels...emotional/spiritual levels, not the physical level. I can't be sure, but I believe I initially responded to someone talking about seeing a woman and then imagining themselves in an intimate situation with that woman. There's a difference between getting physically aroused when you see an attractive woman and imagining having sex with her.

    And the response is... what's so wrong about imagining having sex with someone? Since when did fantasy become evil? Unless one takes it to the extent that we approach that person and attempt to get them to fulfill that fantasy with no regard to their opinion on the matter, what's the big deal? Are you saying it is impossible to ever fantasize about having sex with someone while still treating them with respect and dignity? That's absurd.

    Jesus, you people must lead dull lives. I can't imagine a life without the joy of using my imagination.
    she was underwhelmed, if that's a word
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    There is a difference but neither of them means that you don't respect her as a person. If I sit at work and fantasize about going home and having sex with my girlfriend am I objectifying her.

    i'm gonna speculate that if you are fantasizing about having sex with your gf for the purpose of having a mutually beneficial experience that is as much about the connection and feelings you have for each other - then NO ... but if your sole purpose is to have sex with her so you can get off and you just are using her because she's available - then YES ...
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    mammasan wrote:
    If I sit at work and fantasize about going home and having sex with my girlfriend am I objectifying her?
    That all depends on what the fantasy stems from....too difficult for anyone but yourself to answer.

Categories