Lonely Ronin Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 There are touchy subjects for men, too, that women are dishonest about. I've learned over the years that many men are sensitive about their penis size, their woman's sexual history(#) and height. The truth hurts. Many women have said their men are the biggest and best, because we have learned that men have sensitive egos and don't want to deal with the aftermath of certain revelations. So it's not just men, many women have secrets, too. And it's worth mentioning they have just as much social conditioning as men do.
phineas Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Hmm. You know, I did a study on this subject once. It was pretty interesting. Well, if I can articulate it correctly, what I found was this: both women and men drive the media frenzy targeted at women. At the top, most ad agencies, directors and producers, etc are men. They are choosing women with certain attributes based on what they perceive their target audience to want. If their target audience is male, you get the Scarlett J's and the Kim K's, the Megan F's. They do this because when they do their research determining who their audience will want to see in order to make more money, the results are the same every time. It's why men will go to see a crappy movie with absolutely no plot if there's a lot of gore and tits in it. Why women will see a crappy movie if it has their fav actor/actress in it, and a feel good sappy theme. Anyway, men decide what they find attractive and the media reflects it. Then the makeup and fashion companies jump all over it and tell women they need this or that in order to compete with the other women, because after all, we are all competing in order to get noticed. The more sexualized the media gets, the more favorable response there is to it by men, the more it continues, and the more women's fashion trends reflect it. This changes of course through the times - it used to be fashionable for women to be overweight, now it's fashionable to be very thin. It's interesting to note that former supermodels like Cindy Crawford would be considered too fat by today's standards - in the industry. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of guys who understand that women in the media are FANTASY. They like looking at sex, at naked women (hence all the boob shots in almost every movie), at women they consider to be 'hot'. But in real life, most men don't need that. The issue seems to be 2 fold. First, as long as men appreciate seeing one type of woman in the media, the media will capitalize on that and women will be pressured to emulate that, no matter what type of woman that is. You might be interested to know that women with Kim K's body type are the type that most men are attracted to in general but the least common body type. Anyway. Second, while most older men seem to understand that these women aren't 'real' per se, there is a whole generation of younger men who have less and less access to 'real' women. Unlike older generations who may have looked at whatever dirty mag they could scrounge up, soft-core porn with bad reception, or actual real life girls, guys nowadays have almost unlimited access to internet porn movies and pics, and movies and tv shows in general that have a lot of very unnatural women in them. It's no wonder that many of them really have no idea what a real woman looks like. Another thought. I have read that if a man sees women he considers to be attractive (in a movie or whatever), he's less satisfied with his current partner. I'm sure women do that too though. Phineas, I agree with you that many of the most attractive people have crap for personality. However, I think we all know some people who would date a bore who is hot rather than a compelling average person. I'm 40. I had internet porn back in college. I got it now. I do know some guys who are porn-star fans like fans of real actors & I find them creepy. Seriously? I watch my porn in 5 min. increments. I don't sit down with a bowl of popcorn for a full length movie. I also prefer the armature stuff myself. For instance, summer Glau? every sci-fi geeks wet dream. I don't get it myself. Nice body (kinda thin) and a face that I find average. I can think of other actresses i'd rather see on TV than her. That blond from True Blood for instance. She played rouge on X-men. Nice body but I'm not drawn to her face either. I see women in real life with similar bodies & looks that i'd be happy with. I've also chosen not to pursue women that pop my rod so to speak just because of their personality. we all know people that date very attractive people with the personality of a wet sock & to be honest, those people aren't exactly great catches themselves. The problem on this forum is very few people will accept a middle ground. If someone doesn't agree with them, their perceived as having a polar opposite opinion regardless of them claiming a middle ground & showing a middle ground in their posts. It's mind boggling. I honestly wonder if people are only black & white online because it's anonymous. I avoid people like that in real life because their nothing but unpleasant to be around.
SilverLining Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Haha Phineas, you were luckier than me. I'm 30 and never had access to porn other than my grandpa's stack of dirty mags, and my mom took them away if she found them. Other than that I think you make some interesting points. I think the majority of people come here for help or something, and can be bitter or dealing with any number of insecurities. I got on while I was dealing with a difficult breakup and just liked the idea of the forum in general so I stayed. I like that there are many different viewpoints...I don't like the gender bashing. I think both men and women deserve more credit here than they are given.
xxoo Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 I remember a discussion with a group of young men, in their early 20s, that were absoluetely stunned that a girl of 19 could have flabby breasts. They haven't seen anything but porn-like examples of breasts or what the "movies" let people see when it coems to a woman's body. . I'm not surprised by the discussion, but believe you've jumped to conclusions about men and porn because of it. I remember having a very similar conversation with a guy friend, as a teen, because his girlfriend (also a teen) appeared to have "saggy" breasts. We girls were very confused, because we didn't know that girls our age could have sagging breasts. This had absolutely zero to do with porn. He reassured us that her breasts were very enjoyable and attractive, even as they sagged He was always a great guy to talk to about "guy's views" on girls and sex. Disenchantedly Yours: I think it's a useless crusade to fight against the very common male trait of having sexual thoughts when looking at women, or images of women. Or, for having sexual thoughts when driving, or using a jigsaw in the shop. Any old time. It has nothing to do with objectifying women. Sure, many of the guys who are having these multitudinous impersonal sexual thoughts that may have been triggered by looking at an actual woman DO objectify women. And, I think it's piggish for men to be ogling women, especially when they are actually with a woman other than the ones being ogled - also, to disengage from interacting with their date or partner because they are immersed in sexual fantasy land instead (including porn). Many men don't objectify, ignore or ogle, though. They are very likely still having those thoughts that bother you so much. The sexual thoughts are normal and not "bad." It's a part of male sexuality. If you insist that men you're involved with don't have any sexual thoughts when looking at women or images of women (or in other ways unrelated to you and your own relationship with them), you are fighting a losing battle. Also, you are likely weakening your relationship, because the man will learn quickly that he better NEVER let you in on the reality of his sexual nature or else he'll be in for it. Agree! Esp the bolded parts.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 lululucy Men obviously do contribute but it's certainly not to the level that women and the media do. I find it exhausting when women blame all the societal expectations on male opinion. I bet for ever example you could offer how women contribute to negative ideals about themselves, I could come up with ways men do within the same venue even if the relation comes in a different form. For the life of me I can't understand your perspective. I really try, honestly, but I don't get where you come off saying that all women would consider a man who thinks about sleeping with women he sees somehow bad. In my opinion, which we are all sharing our opinions, I do believe this to be a huge negative for any woman. Now you, as a woman, can think it's a huge positive for any woman and you are entitled to that opinion. Now this is a different comment from what you are insisting I said, which was that "all women would consider a man who thinks about sleeping with a woman he sees somehow bad." I didn't say "all" women would consider it bad, I said that I believe this to be a huge negative for any woman. Now there is a difference between seeing someone you find attractive and having sexual thoughts here and there. But if you are so consumed by sex and only viewing on gender on terms of sex, to the point you are viewing men or women you don't even really like/have interest in/perhaps even consider undesirable in some fashion, then I don't really see how that's a healthy mindset. Yes, we are all going to notice other people that are attractive. We are going to have little fantasies to varying degrees. But if you only ever look at women in terms of "I would bang them/this is how I would bang them", I jsut don't see how that's a good thing. How is it selfish or greedy? If I like to glance at cars I see driving by, does it make me greedy or selfish to want to drive both an Aston Martin and a 911 Turbo? I'm obviously not GOING to (unless I win the lottery tonight) but I can think about it without being greedy or selfish I believe it to be selfish and greedy because of the way it's relating to people on only one level. And if you are consumed for lusting after everything you don't have, simply because you don't have it, again, it's a selfish/greed mentality. And quite honestly, if you are in a vacuum where you focus on these things, you are going to miss alot of other things in the process. It doesn't have anything to do with self-control -- if Wholigan was sexually assaulting every woman he saw that he considered bangable, that would be about self-control. Perhaps you aren't using clear enough examples because I really cannot fathom your point of view. Frankly, I know there are people that disagree with me on this point and will throw back "thought police!" bitter comments. But this is a huge issue of self control. Just because it's a fantasy or thought in your mind, doesn't mean you can't control it. And that's the big lie people eat up through the media. That they can't "help" what they think. You might have certain thoughts that pop in your head, but you are incharge what you do with them both mentally and physically. If you have negative thoughts about yourself, do you just continue to have them or do you fight to think better of yourself? If you experience a bad situation with someone of a certain creed or race, your brain is wired to set of warning bells when you encounter the same "type" of person. But people try to maintain some amount of self control over hteir thoughts to fight against what the brain can easily wire into our own heads. It's like someone trying to learn how to eat better or have better relationships, they aren't just changing the physical, they are also working to rewire and change the mental aspect. I think my examples are perfectly clear. But I am happy to further explain them to you for your confusion.
xxoo Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 I made sure my first really serious boyfriend (I met him when I started university at 17 and stayed with him for 4 years) NEVER saw me without makeup. Not one time. I told my husband about it, laughing, and commented about what an insecure basket case I was at that stage. He said he thought of it as sort of "valiant." Ha! I was just the opposite, meeting my H at 17, and almost never wearing makeup. On the occasions that I did wear it, I remember him making comments about preferring me without. IMO, 17 is the time to go bare-faced. Make up makes every young girl look 30+ to me
phineas Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Haha Phineas, you were luckier than me. I'm 30 and never had access to porn other than my grandpa's stack of dirty mags, and my mom took them away if she found them. Other than that I think you make some interesting points. I think the majority of people come here for help or something, and can be bitter or dealing with any number of insecurities. I got on while I was dealing with a difficult breakup and just liked the idea of the forum in general so I stayed. I like that there are many different viewpoints...I don't like the gender bashing. I think both men and women deserve more credit here than they are given. Playboy & national Geographic! How about that for two extremes for examples in female breasts. LOL! I found this place yrs ago when I suspected my wife of cheating. I just wanted people to tell me I was crazy & imagining it. LOL! They pimp-slapped me good and hard with the leather glove of reality. Helped me also through the divorce & other BS she put me through. but I don't know what's happened to the forum. I don't remember it being so us vs. them before.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 ThaWholigan I wasn't involved in that disagreement, I just picked up on one thing you said. Okay, I just don't see how it relates I guess. I understand it's a huge negative for a few women. Which is why I don't necessarily talk about it. I have enough self-control to not think about it all the time, but sooner or later, I'm gonna think about it. I am not going to quote a flimsy statistic, but I will go out on a limb and say that EVERY man I know thinks this way, even my father. I am not consumed by sex, and I don't see women in terms of who is bangable or not, I have far more about me than that - but that doesn't mean I'm not going to think about sex with them, it usually happens even when I'm not predisposed to think about it at that moment. Sometimes I don't even want to, when the thought comes, I switch it to something else, usually football. And this I understand. I don't expect men to be perfect. Both men and women are going to have sexual thoughts. It's what you do with it that's ultimately up to you. I'm not saying all sexual thoughts are bad. I am saying that our culture pretty much sets up the lie that all sexual thoughts are okay. We have a huge indulgence and lack of self control through sex that surpasses what we have with people's issues with over consumption of food. I have remonstrated this with people close to me and both men and women have described it as not a negative and that "most men are like that". I don't always take people's word for things, so I won't say that I am talking facts but this is just what I believe. I understand you're not putting me down, I'm not easily offended But see, that's another think I think people are a little brainwashed into. I think both men and women are socially brainwashed into just excepting bad sexual behavior from men because of the idea that sex is what makes a man a man. So when men behave badly, we all go "oh well, that's just the way men are." But men don't have to be like that. Men can be a lot better then that. And I honestly believe alot of men want to be better then a lot of the over the top sexual stereotypes that are made even about themselves. Of course, there are men that like the "most men are like that", because it gives them an excuse to behave a certain way that is easist for them. It wasn't about your previous posts, I just felt like commenting on that one thing. Okay, thanks for explaining. I didn't understand. Well it's a little more conservative than most people on here, which isn't a negative to me, just different. Conservative is a good way to describe it. More fitting them "extreme". While some of my views may be "conservative", and a lot of people will automatically chalk that up to the "uncool" kid opinion, I think my views have a lot of merit.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Mme. Chaucer I think it's a useless crusade to fight against the very common male trait of having sexual thoughts when looking at women, or images of women. Or, for having sexual thoughts when driving, or using a jigsaw in the shop. Any old time. I'm not fighting against "the very common male trait of having sexual thoughts when looking at women, or images of women." Men and women are human and they are going to have sexual thoughts. I don't know how to be any clearer because I've said this several times already. And yes, it is "natural" to have sexual thoughts. But it's not always healthy or right. The how society pushes us to indulge in every little whim and fancy when it comes to sex, is what's driving alot of discontent and anger between both men and women. My issue has more to do with the social aspect then the human one. We've been conditioned to believe certain things about men and women and sexuality. Such as "real men never turn down sex". So if a man does turn down sex because maybe he is tired for a night, then he's lacking somehow. Or the idea that "real women can't have emotionless sex", when clearly there are women that can. Or that the way you think about things, the thoughts that fill your head, are okay as long as you don't act on them. I personally don't believe they are. Just like the physical, the mental matters. And the brain is capable of change as much as the physical is. It has nothing to do with objectifying women. Sure, many of the guys who are having these multitudinous impersonal sexual thoughts that may have been triggered by looking at an actual woman DO objectify women. And, I think it's piggish for men to be ogling women, especially when they are actually with a woman other than the ones being ogled - also, to disengage from interacting with their date or partner because they are immersed in sexual fantasy land instead (including porn). Many men don't objectify, ignore or ogle, though. They are very likely still having those thoughts that bother you so much. The sexual thoughts are normal and not "bad." We disagree aout the state of objectification. However, I agree with you that sexual thoughts are normal. I disagree that every sexual thought people have is "healthy". It's a part of male sexuality. This is the argument that botherse me the post. How do we know what is really part of male sexuality and what men (and women) are conditioned to believe about themselves that is part of their sexuality? Further, while some things might be part of our female and male sexuality, that doesn't give enough reason to treat the other side with desrespect or justify certain actions that ultimately are about using one gender over the other. If you insist that men you're involved with don't have any sexual thoughts when looking at women or images of women (or in other ways unrelated to you and your own relationship with them), you are fighting a losing battle. Also, you are likely weakening your relationship, because the man will learn quickly that he better NEVER let you in on the reality of his sexual nature or else he'll be in for it. Not in anything I ever said, did I say that I expect and insist the men that I am involved with to not have any sexual thoughts of otehr women. What I have said is that I expect some merit of self control out of respect for our relationship and that aspect of self control is not just a physical one. I have also said that I don't expect any man to be perfect. I just expect him to try because of what he utlimately decides is more important to him. I think today in our culture we have a very lazy attitude about alot of things. You are right that if I expect a man to NEVER have a sexual thought about another woman, he might hide things from me. But if men have the expectations that they can indulge themselves to their heart's content, consuming all kinds of media, or fantasies of other women to file away in his mental spank bank, and still expect me to feel vulnerable at the times he wants me to be vulnerable with him and open up, he too then is having un real expectations. A man should be honest about his sexual nature. But he should also have the respect to honesty take in how that might make his partner feel so they can work it out together. Instead of using her own very real and natural and normal feelings about the situation has a justification on why he can put a fake foot foward.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Martinman Sure they do. guy s also want to bang a good looking blowup doll or a high heel shoe. Dogs do table legs. The question is who do they find MORE attractive. For me it's the natural, good looking, fit, 'girl-next-door'. You need to put down the fashion magazines and get off of the consumer treadmill. Hint...billions are spent convincing women to purchase 'stuff'. I doubt if many ads start with 'don't buy this product because your eyes are fantastic just the way they are'. As for those 'lists'...so what? It's usually rating known individuals (hint...celebrities). Stick in quiet Mary the librarian and guys go nuts. It's ironic to me that your telling me to put down the fashion magazines when I'm pretty vocal about the fact that I think these contribute to the problem just as much as men's magazines. And I often post about fighting against social ideals of beauty. Why aren't you telling men to put down the porn and get off the consumder treadmill? Because you do realize that porn is a multi - billion dollar industry that surpasses that of music, sports and regular Hollywood movies don't you? Tell the women to put the fashion magazines down. But also tell them men to put down the porn if that's your message. As for those "lists". They are made for men and voted on by men. I have yet to see one person list a significant list that women "make" that's equal in comparison to what men do with rating female celebrities for popular men's magazines. Again, the irony is that you don't tell men to put down the men's magazines.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 I'm not surprised by the discussion, but believe you've jumped to conclusions about men and porn because of it. I remember having a very similar conversation with a guy friend, as a teen, because his girlfriend (also a teen) appeared to have "saggy" breasts. We girls were very confused, because we didn't know that girls our age could have sagging breasts. This had absolutely zero to do with porn. He reassured us that her breasts were very enjoyable and attractive, even as they sagged He was always a great guy to talk to about "guy's views" on girls and sex. Did you grow up looking at porn yourself XXOO? Did your friends? I remember how men would talk about how excited they would get at seeing naked breasts in a National Geo mag. Those breasts where as real as they were going to get. These women were not models and they weren't even "young". But men use to LOVE to see these images. How many men would be happy with a spread in National Geo now? I think porn has a lot to do with male perception of female body. And in my example, I think many of the men had unrealistic expecatations because all they were ever shown where women with a certain "kind" of breast. Heck, Even at 13 I knew breasts came in all shapes and sizes and that breasts where just fat tissue. Fat tissue isn't generally known for it's firmness.
lululucy Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 In my opinion, which we are all sharing our opinions, I do believe this to be a huge negative for any woman. Now you, as a woman, can think it's a huge positive for any woman and you are entitled to that opinion. Now this is a different comment from what you are insisting I said, which was that "all women would consider a man who thinks about sleeping with a woman he sees somehow bad." I didn't say "all" women would consider it bad, I said that I believe this to be a huge negative for any woman. Stating "it is a huge negative for any woman" is stating what you consider a universal truth, therefore you cannot say in the same breath that I can state the explicit opposite and both be right. I concede happily that, for you, it is a huge negative for a man to think about sex, and by extension that could apply to other women as well. I am not saying it is a universal truth that all women like that. I just think that you're talking in circles and I don't think you've actually made a valid point, nor do I think the point you have made bears any weight. I take it you actually mean "I believe this to be a huge negative for some women". In that case, valid, though I don't know any women who agree (except perhaps my chaste aunt). Now there is a difference between seeing someone you find attractive and having sexual thoughts here and there. But if you are so consumed by sex and only viewing on gender on terms of sex, to the point you are viewing men or women you don't even really like/have interest in/perhaps even consider undesirable in some fashion, then I don't really see how that's a healthy mindset. Yes, we are all going to notice other people that are attractive. We are going to have little fantasies to varying degrees. But if you only ever look at women in terms of "I would bang them/this is how I would bang them", I jsut don't see how that's a good thing. That isn't what he said. He isn't "consumed" with looking at women he sees in terms of who he wants to sleep with, he sees a woman and considers whether he would or not. To go back to the car analogy, I see a 918 Spyder and I think "Wow, gorgeous, I'd love to get in that" not "I wonder how compatible that car would be with my lifestyle and goals". It's appreciation, it's imagination, it is not harmful. Yes, women aren't cars but how are you supposed to view someone from afar if you're not interacting with them? "I wonder if that woman would be a good girlfriend"? He also didn't say he only EVER looked at women in terms of who he would sleep with, it just happens to be one of the first things he noticed. I believe it to be selfish and greedy because of the way it's relating to people on only one level. And if you are consumed for lusting after everything you don't have, simply because you don't have it, again, it's a selfish/greed mentality. And quite honestly, if you are in a vacuum where you focus on these things, you are going to miss alot of other things in the process. That is true, if you only focus on the superficial you are going to miss out on a lot of people's really special, unique qualities. It does not follow, however, that appreciating their superficial qualities is somehow negative. Would you instead suggest that a man talk to every woman he was going to look at? We see hundreds of people a day (depending where you live of course), there is no way to interact with each and every one of them. Just because it's a fantasy or thought in your mind, doesn't mean you can't control it. And that's the big lie people eat up through the media. That they can't "help" what they think. You might have certain thoughts that pop in your head, but you are incharge what you do with them both mentally and physically. Sure. But why are sex thoughts shameful? If you have negative thoughts about yourself, do you just continue to have them or do you fight to think better of yourself? If you experience a bad situation with someone of a certain creed or race, your brain is wired to set of warning bells when you encounter the same "type" of person. But people try to maintain some amount of self control over hteir thoughts to fight against what the brain can easily wire into our own heads. HOW is healthy sexual imagination on par with racism or self-hatred? This is exactly what created the porn industry you hate so much, a shaming of people's natural sexuality creating a backlash when there was sexual freedom. I think my examples are perfectly clear. But I am happy to further explain them to you for your confusion. They are clear but they don't logically follow, that is probably where my confusion lies.
dasein Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 The first time I masturbated, it was to a cartoon in Mad Magazine, some drawing of a woman in a bikini LOL.
xxoo Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Did you grow up looking at porn yourself XXOO? Did your friends? No, I didn't. We didn't. This was late 80s early 90s, fwiw. Most of my reference came from seeing girls and women in locker rooms, and art museum stuff (classical nudes, for example). I did get to see Nat Geo! But the teen girls in Nat Geo typically have high, firm breasts. The mothers and older women typically have the lower, sagging breasts. It was surprising to me to learn that a girl my age could have sagging breasts. I don't know why a boy that age would be any different. I also didn't know a whole lot about penises at that age. A whole different learning curve there, lol!
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 lululucy Stating "it is a huge negative for any woman" is stating what you consider a universal truth, therefore you cannot say in the same breath that I can state the explicit opposite and both be right. But you aren't stating the explicit opposite. You said: " ...but I don't get where you come off saying that all women would consider a man who thinks about sleeping with women he sees somehow bad." Show me where I said that. I never said all women would "consider" it bad, you did. I said that I personally consider it a huge negative for any woman, not that "all women would consider it bad". You do realize the difference right? You inferred things of my original statement that weren't even there. My personal opinion that it's a "huge negative for any woman" can exist in the same sphere as, "not all women will consider that type a man "bad"." Not all women will. This is true. But that doesn't change my view that it's a huge negative for any woman either. Either way, your original issue with my comment seems more of a distraction from the actual topic then an honest attempt at a healthy discussion. I concede happily that, for you, it is a huge negative for a man to think about sex, and by extension that could apply to other women as well. Again, you are purposely mispresenting what I said. Show me, in any of my comments, where my argument ever was that it was a huge negative for men to think about sex. You've taken the rest of the discussion out of context for your own agenda. I infact said that thinking about sex was natural, that it was going to happen and that it infact can be healthy. But I also said that just because one thinks about sex, doesn't mean it's automatically "healthy" or "good" if it's complusive or if it's the only way you look at other people. I am not claiming that all thoughts about sex are bad. What I challenage is the idea that anything that pops into our heads about sex is right and healthy and that we shouldn't use merits of self control in the mental just like we do in the physical. You'll notice that ThaW. actually talked about how he does sometimes try to distract himself and thinks of football instead. I never once claimed thoughts of sex where "bad" in all encompassing statement. And you purposely ignored everything I said within that discussion to peddle your own agenda. What I challenge is the perception that every time something sexual pops up in our head or we feel something sexual, that we should self indulge in it. Or that it's normal to be consumed so much with ideas of sex that when we encounter people we put them on a "how much do I want to bang them" list. Even when people clearly state they aren't evey really interested in these people. I just think that you're talking in circles and I don't think you've actually made a valid point, nor do I think the point you have made bears any weight. Simply stating that I haven't made any valid points is empty space unless you can actually counter it with specific points I made that you personally consider invalid. I myself can't take much stock in your own comments here. They seem more driven by pettiness then just someone disagreeing and sharing why they disagree. I welcome and encourage you to point out some points I've made that you personally consider invalid. This would make your own comments hold more weight then they currently do. I take it you actually mean "I believe this to be a huge negative for some women". In that case, valid, though I don't know any women who agree (except perhaps my chaste aunt). Considering you haven't been able to get one thing correct about what I've been talking about, I won't take offense to your Chast Aunt comment. Thought we both know that was thrown in for some fun sensationalism put down then anything else. That isn't what he said. He isn't "consumed" with looking at women he sees in terms of who he wants to sleep with, he sees a woman and considers whether he would or not. To go back to the car analogy, I see a 918 Spyder and I think "Wow, gorgeous, I'd love to get in that" not "I wonder how compatible that car would be with my lifestyle and goals". It's appreciation, it's imagination, it is not harmful. Yes, women aren't cars but how are you supposed to view someone from afar if you're not interacting with them? "I wonder if that woman would be a good girlfriend"? I think it would benefit you to further read his own comments and response to me. I will take his comment for himself over what you are attaching to him due to what *you* personally believe. We have very different views on that and I'm okay with that. You already used the car comparison and I already responded to it. I don't feel the need to repeat what I previously told you despite your desire to repeat your car comparison again. That is true, if you only focus on the superficial you are going to miss out on a lot of people's really special, unique qualities. It does not follow, however, that appreciating their superficial qualities is somehow negative. Would you instead suggest that a man talk to every woman he was going to look at? We see hundreds of people a day (depending where you live of course), there is no way to interact with each and every one of them. First, I didn't say that appreciating superficial qualtities is always negative! Goodness. I said that when you only think of one gender in these terms and judge them best on how *you* can best *use* them to get what *you* want from them based on those qualities, there is an element of selfishness and greed. This is undeniable. Now you might be okay with a man that shows those kind of qualities. I want a man that challenges himself to be better despite what his more base and selfis instincts might tell him to do. Just as I should do the same to be a better woman for a good man. Sure. But why are sex thoughts shameful? You tell me. I didn't say sexual thoughts where shameful. HOW is healthy sexual imagination on par with racism or self-hatred? This is exactly what created the porn industry you hate so much, a shaming of people's natural sexuality creating a backlash when there was sexual freedom. What? What is wrong with you. Where did I say that "healthy sexual imagination is on par with racism or self-hatered". You sure do love to take comments out of context and twist them for your own pursuits. Firstly, I was using an example about how the brain wires itself. It's no big secret that the brain will absorb certain negative experience and when confronted with another experience with similiar characteristics, will react to that experience based on pattern of what perviously happened. But because we are more intelligent then that, people can rewrite those patterns with practice. If someone got trapped in an elevator and is affected by the experience, it might take them a while to be able to take an elevator again. Because the brain rewired itself to hunt out possible harmful situations. Does that mean that it's logical to be afraid of every elevator? No. But the brain easily froms patterns of thoughts based on what we absorb. Am I making a justification for prejudice? Don't be ludicris. It was just an example that you decided to pull the race card out on for no reason at all. I also said nothing about "self hatred". People can like themselves very much but might have some soft spots they need to work on. With work and changing your mental landscape, you can find yourself in a better place. Sometimes it has nothing to do with how you see yourself. Sometimes it about taking the mental time to forgive someone for having done something from you, or changing perceptions you previously held no matter what they may be. They are clear but they don't logically follow, that is probably where my confusion lies. I'm sorry but saying they are clear but they don't logically follow makes no sense in itself. You've taken alot of what I said, and instead of asking me questions in order to understand better, you twisted alot of what I said and even went as far to completely falsely misrepresent what I've said.
FitChick Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Every year People magazine puts out a Sexiest Man Alive issue. Here is a list of the sexiest men in cinema. There have always been lists of sexy men over the years. It's totally subjective and unimportant. The only thing that should be important in a relationship is looking good for your man (or woman). I used to date a man who liked the cheap tart look. He bought me sky high red stilettos, wanted me to wear bright red lipstick, Amy Winehouse eyeliner and false eyelashes, bought a couple of very sexy but very uncomfortable corsets and garter belts. The whole Dita von Teese thing. Well, I'd never leave home dressed like that but when we stayed home, if it got his motor running, I didn't have a problem with it. I didn't go on a feminist rant about him not loving my inner beauty.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 No, I didn't. We didn't. This was late 80s early 90s, fwiw. Most of my reference came from seeing girls and women in locker rooms, and art museum stuff (classical nudes, for example). I did get to see Nat Geo! But the teen girls in Nat Geo typically have high, firm breasts. The mothers and older women typically have the lower, sagging breasts. It was surprising to me to learn that a girl my age could have sagging breasts. I don't know why a boy that age would be any different. I also didn't know a whole lot about penises at that age. A whole different learning curve there, lol! See, I had seen girls and women in locker rooms too and museums and I knew breasts came in all sizes. If you had that experience then why woudln't you have known that too? I will stand firm on my point that media has given a lot of negative perceptions of female bodies that young men have bought into because of the stuff they are loking at. I don't remember too many high perky breasts on any women in National Geo. I also don't remember really being able to tell the ages of the women in Nat Geo, especially when you are younger yourself, unless they were very old or very young. Now that wasn't your experience and that's fine. But I think it's a little naive to think that men and young boys aren't garnering false ideals about womens' bodies from male entertainment. As I said before, men use to be happy with the JC Penny catalog and Nat Geo. It's a different story now.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Every year People magazine puts out a Sexiest Man Alive issue. Here is a list of the sexiest men in cinema. There have always been lists of sexy men over the years. It's totally subjective and unimportant. The only thing that should be important in a relationship is looking good for your man (or woman). I used to date a man who liked the cheap tart look. He bought me sky high red stilettos, wanted me to wear bright red lipstick, Amy Winehouse eyeliner and false eyelashes, bought a couple of very sexy but very uncomfortable corsets and garter belts. The whole Dita von Teese thing. Well, I'd never leave home dressed like that but when we stayed home, if it got his motor running, I didn't have a problem with it. I didn't go on a feminist rant about him not loving my inner beauty. Don't they also do sexist women? And do readers vote on it like they do with a lot of the men's magazines? That's great you dressed up for your man. Guess what? I do that stuff too.
xxoo Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 See, I had seen girls and women in locker rooms too and museums and I knew breasts came in all sizes. If you had that experience then why woudln't you have known that too? I will stand firm on my point that media has given a lot of negative perceptions of female bodies that young men have bought into because of the stuff they are loking at. I don't remember too many high perky breasts on any women in National Geo. I also don't remember really being able to tell the ages of the women in Nat Geo, especially when you are younger yourself, unless they were very old or very young. Now that wasn't your experience and that's fine. But I think it's a little naive to think that men and young boys aren't garnering false ideals about womens' bodies from male entertainment. Do you believe it is not typical for young women/girls to have high, perky breasts? This is actually news to me, a grown woman and mother. Sure, different shapes and sizes, but generally high and firm at young ages, and lower, softer with age and/or babies. All quite beautiful, naturally It was easy for me to identify the young women in Nat Geo because they had high, perky breasts.
jobaba Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Most men will say that they prefer a woman without makeup, yet I feel like I could never get a typically "hot" guy simply because I despise wearing makeup. I'm a pretty girl, or so I've been told, and have no problems with men in general, but I feel as though I could never get with the really 'hot' guys because they constantly have the Barbie-looking Blonde who curls her hair and wears expensive make up everyday hanging off of them. PS., not that these 'Barbie' types aren't gorgeous, but you know? They're always dressed to the nines. I just don't do that ..... It's not just about makeup or no makeup. Good makeup applied tastefully to accentuate 'natural beauty'... http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=tGo&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1600&bih=781&tbm=isch&tbnid=ze0A7LackxzpgM:&imgrefurl=http://fitnessanddefense.com/megan-fox-diet/&docid=vaz9swG0xQWFrM&imgurl=http://fitnessanddefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/megan_fox_actress-26541.jpg&w=399&h=600&ei=D13-TowkiO_SAe7hpeEN&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=793&vpy=393&dur=877&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=126&ty=213&sig=106747106848394077863&page=1&tbnh=184&tbnw=137&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0 Cheap makeup applied untastefully... http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1600&bih=781&tbm=isch&tbnid=t5LlyqP_YI-QKM:&imgrefurl=http://www.pulpwoodqueen.com/2010/03/pulpwood-queens-host-mimi-from-drew.html&docid=-HjAvl5G2o29DM&imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_St9FLAmnMZ4/S5fIbMQfJHI/AAAAAAAAHRI/ASADKNeSWdQ/s400/mimi-bobeck.jpg&w=232&h=199&ei=Vl3-Tu6UD6fY0QHz2MnSAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=542&vpy=200&dur=1157&hovh=159&hovw=185&tx=95&ty=99&sig=106747106848394077863&page=1&tbnh=129&tbnw=147&start=0&ndsp=38&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0
Mme. Chaucer Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 It's not just about makeup or no makeup. Good makeup applied tastefully to accentuate 'natural beauty'... http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=tGo&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1600&bih=781&tbm=isch&tbnid=ze0A7LackxzpgM:&imgrefurl=http://fitnessanddefense.com/megan-fox-diet/&docid=vaz9swG0xQWFrM&imgurl=http://fitnessanddefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/megan_fox_actress-26541.jpg&w=399&h=600&ei=D13-TowkiO_SAe7hpeEN&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=793&vpy=393&dur=877&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=126&ty=213&sig=106747106848394077863&page=1&tbnh=184&tbnw=137&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0 Cheap makeup applied untastefully... http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1600&bih=781&tbm=isch&tbnid=t5LlyqP_YI-QKM:&imgrefurl=http://www.pulpwoodqueen.com/2010/03/pulpwood-queens-host-mimi-from-drew.html&docid=-HjAvl5G2o29DM&imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_St9FLAmnMZ4/S5fIbMQfJHI/AAAAAAAAHRI/ASADKNeSWdQ/s400/mimi-bobeck.jpg&w=232&h=199&ei=Vl3-Tu6UD6fY0QHz2MnSAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=542&vpy=200&dur=1157&hovh=159&hovw=185&tx=95&ty=99&sig=106747106848394077863&page=1&tbnh=129&tbnw=147&start=0&ndsp=38&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0 Well … you'd probably find the makeup in example #2 less distasteful if it were applied to the face of Megan Fox. Right?
Negative Nancy Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Or that the way you think about things, the thoughts that fill your head, are okay as long as you don't act on them. I personally don't believe they are. I very much agree with this. If am man came on here stating that he has ("just" ) thoughts about doing sexual things to a child or an animal, everyone would call him a creep. and rightfully so. they would probably even say he should be locked away for having those thoughts. but men that have creepy sexual thoughts about doing horrible sexual things to women, as sometimes even legally portrayed in porn, somehow get a free pass?
zengirl Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 The extent of my makeup-wearing is eyeliner twice a month. I take the best care of my skin that I can (I only use three products); it will never be flawless but I carry myself like it is. I dress in clothes that fit well, I wear my hair long and loose, and I smile a lot. It's easy and it works like a charm. I do wear makeup sometimes, but I'm mostly a skincare girl. Skincare is the way to go, really. Even the makeup I use is meant to make my skin look better AND become healthier. I think it's a useless crusade to fight against the very common male trait of having sexual thoughts when looking at women, or images of women. Or, for having sexual thoughts when driving, or using a jigsaw in the shop. Any old time. It has nothing to do with objectifying women. This, especially the bolded, is what I want to echo from what Mme. Chaucer has said re: sexual thoughts. I think the problem is when we begin to correlate something like objectifying women --- turning them into objects and taking away their personhood --- with merely having sexual thoughts. There is NOTHING at all wrong with sexual thoughts, in my book, and it's a puritanical Judeo-Christian idea to suggest there is anything wrong with it, really. Men and women have sexual thoughts -- though we have seen, in studies, that they process such thoughts differently in patterns by their gender. Sure, men, typically, are thought to have "more" sexual thoughts, though it depends on what you mean by "more" and whether you're taking an average or whatnot, but I would say that sexual thoughts are very much a part of female sexuality as well --- it's just that female sexuality is more likely to be repressed than male sexuality. (THAT is a byproduct of objectifying women, and it's a shame. But it's another story.) Men and women have sexual urges---it's biological and real, and we also have culturally bred, socialized responses to said sexual urges. None of that's really wrong until you get to thoughts, speech, or behavior that truly objectifies, harms, threatens, or denigrates yourself or another human being. We could argue where those lines are, but objectification isn't simply seeing a woman as a sexual creature. I think porn, perhaps, borders on objectification --- or rather I think that men who overindulge on porn are much MORE likely to objectify women, but there's no harm in objectifying a woman in a porno. The woman has given the A-OK for that, as part of her personhood; she's said she wants to be seen that way, and it's IMO an acceptance of her personhood to accept that -- and I don't see the harm. The harm is, with overindulgence, that one might then cease to see women as people, as equal human beings with thoughts and interests and so forth, and therefore objectify them, but there are PLENTY of men who've wanked to a magazine or watched some porn or whatever who can respect women, interact with women, and understand women are people. As to celebrity hot list, men and women alike make and look at them. Some are disgusting, but it's more based on phrasing and tone, and that's all about "where those lines are" --- which is debatable. But I don't think looking at potential patterns as absolute causation are healthy. Plenty of women swoon over George Clooney and still understand men are people, and plenty of women swoon over Megan Fox and still understand women are people. We ALL objectify celebrities, to a degree, or else they wouldn't be celebrities. Sure, you can go overboard, and people do -- stalkers and crazy people -- but that's not the norm, nor is being "ruined" by female sex objects in various media the norm for men. The problem would be if we thought of the people we interacted with daily in the same way we think about celebrities.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Do you believe it is not typical for young women/girls to have high, perky breasts? This is actually news to me, a grown woman and mother. Sure, different shapes and sizes, but generally high and firm at young ages, and lower, softer with age and/or babies. All quite beautiful, naturally It was easy for me to identify the young women in Nat Geo because they had high, perky breasts. Congrats on your ability to reach adulthood and motherhood. Did I say that it wasn't typical for young women/girls to have perky breasts? What I said was that breasts are nothing but fat and that even a young woman can have what some would call saggy breasts. I said that Hollywood and popular male entertainment often picks women based on a certain type of breast (limited to perky ones) even if there are variations here and there in size. Giving young men (and older men that relay heavily on porn and other popular male entertainment for female companionship) a less realistic idea about the variations in women's bodies. I always found it difficult to tell the age of many tribal women and I don't remember perky breasts being a staple in National Geographic. However, Ironcially, tribal women didn't have to cover their breasts because it's not nearly as sexualized a body part as it is here. Also, Tribal women don't tend to wear bras. Women/girls begin wearing them once they hit puberty. So that contributes to the perkiness of many a breast here in the good old USA.
Recommended Posts