Why Aren't We Shocked?

eden · October 2006

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Okay, I understand that the objectification of women has gotten pretty bad. What I don't understand is what any of what the article spoke of has to do with the amish school girls. They were'nt running around in thongs and makeup with shirts that had less than classy sayings on them.

Its a subtle mindset that permeates society, and then mushrooms into the kind of hatred and objectification of women (girls) that you saw in Pennsylvania.

Unpeel the layers a bit more dude, not everything is at face value in this world.

Vedderlution_Baby · October 2006

eden wrote:

Its a subtle mindset that permeates society, and then mushrooms into the kind of hatred and objectification of women (girls) that you saw in Pennsylvania.

Unpeel the layers a bit more dude, not everything is at face value in this world.

I could understand that if he attacked girls that were discussed in that article. Does objectification really lead to a hate that leads to murder? I can see it leading to little respect and having a skewed view that women are nothing more than meat but murderous hate? I think that they has to be something else involved for it to evolve into that.

catefrances · October 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, all I'm saying is I don't think there is a lesser sex and I don't know anyone who does. If you are in a situation where you might have encountered sexism directed at you, then I can see why you have that idea. However for the vast majority there is no 'lesser' sex. Which means it's situational.

Cultural would imply that it happens across the board, and it doesn't.

no. cultural implies that it is ingrained into our society. and how the practices of that society and how the way men and women are portrayed manifests itself within that society.

Ahnimus · October 2006

eden wrote:

Its a subtle mindset that permeates society, and then mushrooms into the kind of hatred and objectification of women (girls) that you saw in Pennsylvania.

Unpeel the layers a bit more dude, not everything is at face value in this world.

Oh please!

Haven't you ever seen a porno?
Those people like to fuck, both of them.

The objectification goes beyond women, everyone is objectified. Open up a magazine and scope out the male models. Women dress scantily because they want men to look at them, but only the men they want to look at. It's the classic scene of the construction workers with ripped abs chillin out by the heavy machinery tearing their shirts off and pouring water all over their bodies. Everyone wants to be beautiful and sexy but they don't want to be objectified and they objectify others that are beutiful. Women ridicule female models as flakes and hoes because they are jealous of the lifestyle. Men do the same shit, male models are all morons. The difference between men and women as far as objectification is concerned is nill. As an example, my ex-girlfriend watched Wicker Park a billion times because she thinks Ashton Kutcher is sexy. I'm not saying all women are like, not all men are objectifiers either. All together, men and women are equal. The only differences are anatomical, if you don't agree with that then I guess you are an extreme feminist with a totally bias and sexist opinion.

catefrances · October 2006

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

What does playgirl target? Sexually liberated women?

peter steele from the band type O negative posed for playgirl. then he found out that only 23% of subscriptions are bought by women. HAH!!

Ahnimus · October 2006

catefrances wrote:

no. cultural implies that it is ingrained into our society. and how the practices of that society and how the way men and women are portrayed manifests itself within that society.

I know what cultural means.

You are narrow-sighted, you are only looking at one part of the equation because of your particular situation. The only thing ingrained into us is the animalist instinct for survival. It's nature to want to be beautiful, it's nature to be attracted to the best genetics. It's nature for all others to be jealous and act out against the best genetics. It's a two-way street, men and women both suffer from objectification and discrimination.

Vedderlution_Baby · October 2006

catefrances wrote:

peter steele from the band type O negative posed for playgirl. then he found out that only 23% of subscriptions are bought by women. HAH!!

That is pretty funny.

decides2dream · October 2006

Anihmus wrote:

The only differences are anatomical, if you don't agree with that then I guess you are an extreme feminist with a totally bias and sexist opinion.

wow, i am not even weighing in on all your post...just the idea that if one disagrees with YOUR opinion here, they must be biased, sexist, an extreme feminist? no room for leeway on that one eh?

you make some valid points, but i do not 100% agree with them. yes, both men and women objectify, both get judged, etc...but to the exact same degree? i personally disagree.

anyway, i think discussing it, for either/both genders..is a good thing. b/c the more an issue gets discussed, the more aware we all become, and hopefully the more we, and as a result - society, begin to alter our collective behavior to some extent.

catefrances · October 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

I know what cultural means.

You are narrow-sighted, you are only looking at one part of the equation because of your particular situation. The only thing ingrained into us is the animalist instinct for survival. It's nature to want to be beautiful, it's nature to be attracted to the best genetics. It's nature for all others to be jealous and act out against the best genetics. It's a two-way street, men and women both suffer from objectification and discrimination.

i love how your determination of best genetics is visual based. it is NOT nature to want to be beautiful.
but yes i agree with you that both men and women are objectified.

Ahnimus · October 2006

decides2dream wrote:

wow, i am not even weighing in on all your post...just the idea that if one disagrees with YOUR opinion here, they must be biased, sexist, an extreme feminist? no room for leeway on that one eh?

you make some valid points, but i do not 100% agree with them. yes, both men and women objectify, both get judged, etc...but to the exact same degree? i personally disagree.

anyway, i think discussing it, for either/both genders..is a good thing. b/c the more an issue gets discussed, the more aware we all become, and hopefully the more we, and as a result - society, begin to alter our collective behavior to some extent.

Are you saying that men and women are different otherwise? Perhaps women mature faster, maybe they make better parents, maybe they are more sensitive and spiritual naturally, maybe they are better drivers.

Maybe men are more intelligent and better in authoritive positions. Maybe men are more physically adept.

Maybe that's all bullshit from centuries past twisted and recalibrated into a feminists wet dream.

My point is we are equal, it doesn't matter to what degree men or women are objectified. It doesn't even really matter that they are objectified, it feeds our animalistic instincts and if the masses didn't like it, they wouldn't be doing it. It's not going to make or break our kids perceptions. Would it be better if we all dressed up like muslim women?

catefrances · October 2006

soulsinging wrote:

then why did victorygin claim it was a pro-women tv show that demonstrated strong female friendships? which is it?

i think this is the key problem in the feminist movement... just like any woman, they dont know what the fuck they want but seriously, im truly confused. it's like they want it both ways. women shouldnt ever be shown in skimpy outfits becos it objectifies them, but they should wear them as much as they want cos it celebrates their sexuality. it's fine for a woman to look sexy as long as men dont notice how sexy they look? that doesnt make sense.

likewise, half of women see 'sex and the city' as an inspiring show about women being free with their sexuality and taking control of their own lives. the other half see it as perpetuating the "every girl is slutty deep down" male fantasy while still reinforcing that, in the end, women only need/want a decent man to be happy.

it's no wonder guys don't know how to behave and what is and is not acceptable... women don't know this yet either, not even for themselves.

my sexuality is celebrated in private.

but i have to admit some women do dress provocatively because they know the power it gives them. also because they believe that this is how men want to see them. guys fall at their feet and pay way more attention to them and they can get some guys to do what they want them to do.

Vedderlution_Baby · October 2006

catefrances wrote:

my sexuality is celebrated in private.

but i have to admit some women do dress provocatively because they know the power it gives them. also because they believe that this is how men want to see them. guys fall at their feet and pay way more attention to them and they can get some guys to do what they want them to do.

If girls dressed emo and punkish...I'd be falling at their feet.

(Off topic but what the fuck)

Ahnimus · October 2006

catefrances wrote:

i love how your determination of best genetics is visual based. it is NOT nature to want to be beautiful.
but yes i agree with you that both men and women are objectified.

So you are an expert on animal attraction?

Have you ever heard of the Vomeronasal organ?

The brain calculates best matches based on genetics subconciously. The Vomeronasal organ is responsible for detecting pheromones and performing analysis on chemical compositions. It behaves slightly different in different animals. It's predominant in mice and snakes. It's existed in humans is not debated, though it's functionality is. However humans still posess olfactory senses. Another aspect of attraction is facial symmetry. Facial symmetry does not typically vary from culture to culture, however body symmetry does. I hear in Jamaica they objectify women with big butts. In all cultures men with big muscles are objectified.

wikipedia wrote:

Facial symmetry and the golden ratio
Main article: Facial symmetry
Facial symmetry is seen as a universal determinant of health and therefore of beauty. A person of either gender who is considered as attractive in various cultures has been found to have facial symmetry based on the golden ratio of 1:1.618 (phi). Plastic surgeon Stephen Marquardt developed an ideal beauty mask marked with various outlines of facial features based on the golden ratio. The faces that are judged as most attractive are found to fit the mask.

[edit]
Olfactory factors
Olfactory signals, or smell, can influence the perception of attractiveness. Almost universally, the heavy body odor emitted by those with strongly smelling sweat or those who have not frequently bathed is considered unattractive (with the occasional exception of certain fetishes). However, the smell of the human body, that is, insofar as it has not reached the unpleasant degree of body odor, is often considered a sexually attractive factor. It is generally accepted that humans emit pheromones, a form of chemical fragrance, which may cause them to be perceived as sexually attractive to others. [2]. Moreover, many human cultures favor the use of fragrant substances, such as perfume or cologne, or of fragrant soaps and body products. Individuals using such fragrances are typically considered attractive in such cultures, and not exclusively sexually. Additionally, individuals who have freshly bathed, including young children, can often be considered highly "pleasant", "clean", or "beautiful".

catefrances · October 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

So you are an expert on animal attraction?

Have you ever heard of the Vomeronasal organ?

The brain calculates best matches based on genetics subconciously. The Vomeronasal organ is responsible for detecting pheromones and performing analysis on chemical compositions. It behaves slightly different in different animals. It's predominant in mice and snakes. It's existed in humans is not debated, though it's functionality is. However humans still posess olfactory senses. Another aspect of attraction is facial symmetry. Facial symmetry does not typically vary from culture to culture, however body symmetry does. I hear in Jamaica they objectify women with big butts. In all cultures men with big muscles are objectified.

did you just quote wikipedia?

and maybe i am not an expert, but i have attracted a few animals in my time.

attraction by smell makes way more sense to me.

Ahnimus · October 2006

catefrances wrote:

did you just quote wikipedia?

and maybe i am not an expert, but i have attracted a few animals in my time.

attraction by smell makes way more sense to me.

I quoted wikipedia on the part where it reads "originally posted by wikipedia" the rest I typed from memory.

I've actually done a lot of reading on love and attraction and I feel like I understand it pretty good. A study performed took newborn babies and showed them pictures. Some of the pictures were symmetrical and some were asymmetrical, like scribbles. The babies invariably were more interested in the symmetrical drawings. That's just one study that was performed to test the theory of facial symmetry.

The olfactory factors tend to be attributed to the vomeronasal organ, though some people don't believe it plays a role. There is a small pit located in the human nasal cavity that is considered to be the human VNO. The olfactory factors are not debated as far as I can tell, just the specific functionality of the VNO.

This is what is responsible for "love at first sight" all of these subconcious factors. The hypothalamus releases a "love" peptide that causes a state of euphoria. Our cells become addicted to this specific peptide over time and that is what love is. The chemical composition of the peptide varies depending on the other factors.

catefrances · October 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

I quoted wikipedia on the part where it reads "originally posted by wikipedia" the rest I typed from memory.

I've actually done a lot of reading on love and attraction and I feel like I understand it pretty good. A study performed took newborn babies and showed them pictures. Some of the pictures were symmetrical and some were asymmetrical, like scribbles. The babies invariably were more interested in the symmetrical drawings. That's just one study that was performed to test the theory of facial symmetry.

The olfactory factors tend to be attributed to the vomeronasal organ, though some people don't believe it plays a role. There is a small pit located in the human nasal cavity that is considered to be the human VNO. The olfactory factors are not debated as far as I can tell, just the specific functionality of the VNO.

This is what is responsible for "love at first sight" all of these subconcious factors. The hypothalamus releases a "love" peptide that causes a state of euphoria. Our cells become addicted to this specific peptide over time and that is what love is. The chemical composition of the peptide varies depending on the other factors.

and then people go and screw it all up by wearing perfume.

Ahnimus · October 2006

catefrances wrote:

and then people go and screw it all up by wearing perfume.

Yea, the perfume deffinately consuses the olfactory sensors. But I don't think the VNO or any of the others take into account a persons character. So someone could be a good match genetically, but be poorly matched characteristically. That's why I believe, unfortunately, that people fall in and out of love. The chemical addiction of love only works to a point, as with all drugs it becomes somewhat benign but the brain maintains a dependance on it. This leads to cheating to feed the chemical desire and maintain the main supply. Leaving a person leads to chemical withdrawl which can be quite difficult to suffer through. Unless the chemical is replaced with something better. Like going from marijuana to salvia divinorium. Switching partners can have that kind of effect. Actually the idea of monogomy is rather new. More past civilizations had multiple lovers. The traditional family is only a few centuries old.

PaperPlates · October 2006

soulsinging wrote:

then why did victorygin claim it was a pro-women tv show that demonstrated strong female friendships? which is it?

i think this is the key problem in the feminist movement... just like any woman, they dont know what the fuck they want but seriously, im truly confused. it's like they want it both ways. women shouldnt ever be shown in skimpy outfits becos it objectifies them, but they should wear them as much as they want cos it celebrates their sexuality. it's fine for a woman to look sexy as long as men dont notice how sexy they look? that doesnt make sense.

likewise, half of women see 'sex and the city' as an inspiring show about women being free with their sexuality and taking control of their own lives. the other half see it as perpetuating the "every girl is slutty deep down" male fantasy while still reinforcing that, in the end, women only need/want a decent man to be happy.

it's no wonder guys don't know how to behave and what is and is not acceptable... women don't know this yet either, not even for themselves.

extremely well put. its like you reached into my brain, and put my thoughts in much better wording than I could have. Thanks souls.

soulsinging · October 2006

decides2dream wrote:

i think the REAL issue is that sure go and look..but don't use the fact that a woman may be scanitly clad, wearing a revealing outfit, as an invitation to TOUCH, to make agressive physical advances....b/c a woman dressed as such is 'asking for it'...etc.

and sure, i don't think male or female there will EVER be one unified opinion on ANY of these things, the judgements/labels, etc...but discussing them, working on breaking down the stereotypes, etc...is a start. so sure, how one dresses is a reflection of them, what they want to share, etc...but it in no way should be misconstrued as anything beyond an invitation to look....and sure, looking/appreciating is one thing...but being verbally abusive about it, lewd comments, or crossing the line and touching without permission...something else entirely. i would think, male or female...we could hopefully at some point agree on that.

and i would never suggest that a woman is asking for something like that to happen by wearing such clothing. i was simply pointing out that on the one hand, victory pointed to a website condemning women portrayed in skimpy outfits (which is a GREAT site by the way, seriously, more of that sort of thing is needed) and on the other said a woman wearing such clothing is just celebrating her sexuality. i just dont see how it's ok and even a good thing, but once a man takes a picture of it with the girl's consent, it's suddenly misogynist. there was no touching or abuse involved. just pictures. this sounds suspiciously like the supreme court decision stating that "i cant define porn but i know it when i see it."

im reasonably sure i understand the line, even if i cant verbalize it. the trick is getting a very difficult and nuanced distinction across to people who want to resist change.

soulsinging · October 2006

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I could understand that if he attacked girls that were discussed in that article. Does objectification really lead to a hate that leads to murder? I can see it leading to little respect and having a skewed view that women are nothing more than meat but murderous hate? I think that they has to be something else involved for it to evolve into that.

there does have to be something else, but that is a starting point worth talking about. slavery was allowed to flourish becos for a long time blacks were viewed as lesser animals. this lead to the kind of hate that lead to murder, if you've ever heard of lynchings or the KKK. perhaps the movement is not as organized as that, but the staggering amount of physical sexual abuse of men towards women is something to confront, not ignore. if these had been 10 black students who were rounded up, whipped like old times on the plantation, and then killed, there would be universal outrage. instead we have 10 female students rounded up, stripped, raped, molested, and murdered. nobody bats an eye. why? why is racism just, ir not normal, "societal" pressures and sexual violence against women is excused as deviant perverts.

the sheer numbers of rape and sexual abuse (which vastly exceed any reports i've heard recently about lynchings or violence based upon race these days) seem to show that it is anything but deviant. it is symptomatic of a greater problem. the vast majory of sexual violence is not psychos walking into schoolyards and raping kids. it is friends of women, boyfriends, relatives, etc, who feel it is ok to pressure or take advantage of women. date rape is the most common form of it.

i know a half dozen girls who have been raped... not one by a strange pervert. ALL were by an otherwise normal every day guy they considered a friend who felt it was ok to force himself on her becos she "wanted it." that's not just deviant fuckups any morethan you would say an ignorant guy raised in backwoods mississippi on racism was fucked up in the head. it's a symptom of a culture that says "this is an ok way to treat women."

Why Aren't We Shocked?

Comments

Categories