Do you women really not want to be seen as sex objects?

[Emilia]

But you don't just have to fetishize an object, you can also fetishize any woman's body parts. I've heard of some guys that like to put their penis under a woman's arm and rub it in her armpit. Even breasts are fetishized in our culture. Legs. Butts.....So I would disagree that it's the minority. And I am not saying an attraction to legs, butts or breasts are bad at all. But current culture seems to fetishize alot about a woman's body.

 

That's just to do with increasing tightness around the penis, same as anal sex. Plus body heat I'd imagine. It's not my thing but I don't find it offensive.

 

I think enjoying body parts is not the same as fetishising it, I think you have to be careful how you define 'fetish' and how much you blame a guy for enjoying a woman's body. I personally love it how a man who is important to me gets off on touching me. It's pleasant to be desired.

 

I agree that men can/do view women in magazines or videos as objects and can have lasting relationships with women they love. I however just don't think that this is okay. (I think you seem to think it is.) I don't think it's fair for men to seperate women into groups that serve a purpose to him. Certain girls for his pleasure, his real life partner to fulfill other needs. I also don't think it's fair for a woman to be happy with his love for her personality traits when he is, in conjecture with his real life relationship, still leaning on porn to satisfy himself. It's asking her to be happy with something he clearly isn't.

 

Realistically, when you see someone's picture on a piece of paper you will see that person as an object. When I see a naked photo of a man in a magazine I view his muscles and whatever turns me on objectively because he is not a person to me. He is a photo in a magazine. IF he was standing next to me and was talking to me, I would view him as a person. His photographic image does not make me feel the same way and I think that's healthy.

 

I think people habitually separate others into group in terms of what purpose they fill in their lives. That's just human nature. Women do the same. Some view bad boys or rich older men or 'husband material' as separate groups. Another group would be friends only.

 

I also think you overestimate male reliance on porn or at least on regular porn use.

 

You do seem to demonise men unnecesarily if you don't mind my repeating myself

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Emilia

That's just to do with increasing tightness around the penis, same as anal sex. Plus body heat I'd imagine. It's not my thing but I don't find it offensive

.

 

An armpit is more tight then an anus or vagina?

 

We disagree on this Emilia.

 

 

I think enjoying body parts is not the same as fetishising it, I think you have to be careful how you define 'fetish' and how much you blame a guy for enjoying a woman's body. I personally love it how a man who is important to me gets off on touching me. It's pleasant to be desired.

 

I totally agree that enjoying body parts is not the same as fetishizing. However, body parts can and are often fetishized. Especially in porn. It's not just obsecure things like stockings. This was actually a point I made in that response.

 

I think people habitually separate others into group in terms of what purpose they fill in their lives. That's just human nature. Women do the same. Some view bad boys or rich older men or 'husband material' as separate groups. Another group would be friends only.

 

What does that have to do with the comments I made about men seperating women into groups based on their purpose? Do you believe this practice healthy? I certainly don't. I hate when you make a statement and people come back with the classic "everyone does it too!" as a response. It doens't do anything to address the topic.

 

I also think you overestimate male reliance on porn or at least on regular porn use.

 

You do seem to demonise men unnecesarily if you don't mind my repeating myself

 

Acutally, I do mind you repeating yourself. You stated your peace on this, in other threads as well. I am aware of your self evualation of me. I've already responded to this in other threads and here. Now I think you're just using it to toast your argument and paint me a certain way instead of conducting an actual discussion between two people.

 

Do you see me making self evaulations of who you are and what your about? No.

[joystickd]

.

 

 

 

 

Acutally, I do mind you repeating yourself. You stated your peace on this, in other threads as well. I am aware of your self evualation of me. I've already responded to this in other threads and here. Now I think you're just using it to toast your argument and paint me a certain way instead of conducting an actual discussion between two people.

 

Do you see me making self evaulations of who you are and what your about? No.

You paint yourself in that way

[Taramere]

As always Taremere, I have immense respect for your posts and this one proves no different.

 

Thanks for the advice. You always seem to put things nicely into perspective.

 

Aw, thank you - and likewise. I was starting to feel like Queen of the thread-killers lately.

[denise_xo]

Sorry, I haven't read this whole thread so I'm primarily responding to the OP.

 

To me it's really pretty simple: I generally want to be viewed as a whole human being. Part of being human is being sexual, but in addition I have intellect, thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and I have hundreds of ways of interacting with people that are not sexual, in addition to those that are.

 

When I'm reduced to a sexual object only, I find it off putting. When I'm reduced to anything one-dimension-only, I find it off putting. When I'm reduced to any kind of object, I find it off putting.

 

I'm not an object. I'm a subject.

 

Do you men really not want to be seen as walking wallets?

 

 

 

:lmao:

[Thieves]

C'mon Ross, you're smarter than this. 'Sex object' means that the woman is no longer a person, she is just a receptacle for sex, nothing else matters. 'Sexual being' means that the woman, like a man, has sexual desires of her own that you are trying to arouse, and vice versa.

 

Exactly.

 

It's also the fact that men, not just women, are sexual beings. That's a given, no matter what kind of person you decide to be with. However, viewing someone as 'sex object', in my opinion, is a bit disrespectful... especially if they want to be seen as more than that. Sure, women want to be found (sexually) attractive. Who doesn't? But it's all in how you present yourself. At the end of the day, despite gender, we're all people who have different parts of ourselves to show and that should be equally appreciated just as the sexual aspect is. So when a man seems to focus only on that part of a woman, it tends to be a little annoying. After all, if you just want to view women as sex objects or in a purely sexual way, then there are many outlets for that. That's what porn, strippers, and prostitutes are for.

[Lonely Ronin]

Do you see me making self evaulations of who you are and what your about? No.

 

I see you doing it to large groups of people, and frankly I think that is far worse than doing it to an individual. Basically, many of your posts come off as 'holier than thou'.

[Jane2011]

I hear so many times, from guys, that when you're with a woman you find attractive, you're supposed to look at them in a sexual way, ie thinking how much you would like to **** her, imagining her naked, thinking about how her breasts look great. I know that I've always naturally done this anyway.

 

Supposedly this will show in your body language, and you will be more likely to act as though you find her sexually attractive, you will give of the right 'vibes'.

 

So obviously this will be important if you want to attract a woman/hook up with a woman.

 

So, ladies, would you really want guys to not look at you in that way, to not look at you as a sexual creature, and for them to not behave like they're sexual creatures? Would you really rather them not think in that way about you, and wonder about your personality instead, like a neutered nice guy? Would that really turn you on/attract you to him?

 

I think I'm more amenable than most women to being seen as a sex object. This is not to say that I want a guy to only see me as sexual. But if I like him, I don't mind him having a one-track mind, initially. It's flattering. It makes me feel desirable. In truth, I know it doesn't mean anything of substance. But I still feel rather intoxicated by the sexual desire of a guy interested in me.

 

That said, I think I'm less comfortable (than I was in the past) with too much sexual interest too early, and that's actually acted on. If a guy was all over me on a first date without my having prodded him to be so, I'd find it a turn off. It's kind of like I want to know / get the vibe that he's dying to have sex with me, but I also want him to be gentlemanly enough not to try anything without my implicit or overt "permission."

 

I think the reason I don't mind being seen as a sex object is that I'm not worried about any guy's liking "the whole me." I do want him to like the whole me, but I kind of take for granted (even erroneously, probably, at times) that he will. I don't think I'm perfect, but I think I at least pass muster on all the major requirements: basic intelligence, sense of humor, niceness, etc.

[EnigmaticClarity]

Women do not want to be looked at as sexual creatures because they aren't sexual creatures.

 

Most are, some aren't. You probably say this because women don't have the same physical drive for sex that men do so it's easier for them to have their sexuality buried underneath seemingly-impenetrable layers of shame, abuse-inspired anger or fear, or apathy resulting from never finding a way to express their sexual feelings, but most women don't turn out that way.

[Taramere]

Women do not want to be looked at as sexual creatures because they aren't sexual creatures.

 

The question wasn't whether women want to be considered as sexual creatures or sexual animals (terms which suggest an active sexuality). It was whether we want to be considered as sexual objects.

 

For one person to view another as an "object" is a very narcissistic thing. At an extreme, only psychopaths truly regard others as objects for their use, whose needs and feelings are irrelevant. I wouldn't want to be viewed as an object by somebody in my life, because I wouldn't want anybody in my life to be so narcissistic that they'd see other people in those terms.

 

Somebody else asked if men would like to be viewed as walking wallets. I'm sure there are plenty of men who enjoy having money and spending it...but whether they want to be perceived as money-possessing objects to be used by others is a different matter.

 

I'm presuming you're a man. If your personal experience of women is that they aren't sexual creatures then that suggests that women you've had sex with have not invited or appeared to want or enjoy the experience. Maybe seeing it instead as some duty they felt obliged to go along with?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Taramere

[somedude81]

It's stupid that people are arguing over semantics. Over half the thread is wasted on creature/being vs. object.

 

All one has to do is actually read the OP to understand Ross's point.

 

But nope, that's too difficult. It's much easier to talk only about the title and the bad word he chose.

[Dust]

It's stupid that people are arguing over semantics. Over half the thread is wasted on creature/being vs. object.

 

All one has to do is actually read the OP to understand Ross's point.

 

But nope, that's too difficult. It's much easier to talk only about the title and the bad word he chose.

 

Devils in the details. Bottom line go live your life and don't search for anything but entertainment and the ocaisional inspiration in these threads. You can really learn anything experience is needed for like this...

[Disenchantedly Yours]

I see you doing it to large groups of people, and frankly I think that is far worse than doing it to an individual. Basically, many of your posts come off as 'holier than thou'.

 

Such as? If you are going to be bold enough to make the accusation. Be bold enough to talk about it.

[joystickd]

Such as? If you are going to be bold enough to make the accusation. Be bold enough to talk about it.

1. your stance on porn (which degenerates into an attack on men)

2. your stance on male fantasy and your doubts about men (another attack on men)

 

overall these two stance go from being some maybe worth considering to no she is just attempting to shame and control men. The misandry is not worth reading

[somedude81]

Devils in the details. Bottom line go live your life and don't search for anything but entertainment and the ocaisional inspiration in these threads. You can really learn anything experience is needed for like this...

Why do you keep doing this Dust?

 

I'm not asking for advice here.

 

When I ask questions, feel free to answer. But in posts like this, it's just annoying.

[Taramere]

It's stupid that people are arguing over semantics. Over half the thread is wasted on creature/being vs. object.

 

So what exactly do you think people should be discussing? Whether or not women enjoy sex? Perhaps you could clarify what you see as the focus for discussion, rather than just criticising other people's understanding of what the focus here is.

[betterdeal]

Is "sex symbol" an acceptable alternative to "sex object" as a term to describe the focus of one more persons sexual attraction?

[somedude81]

So what exactly do you think people should be discussing? Whether or not women enjoy sex? Perhaps you could clarify what you see as the focus for discussion, rather than just criticising other people's understanding of what the focus here is.

Here's a start.

 

I hear so many times, from guys, that when you're with a woman you find attractive, you're supposed to look at them in a sexual way, ie thinking how much you would like to **** her, imagining her naked, thinking about how her breasts look great. I know that I've always naturally done this anyway.

 

Supposedly this will show in your body language, and you will be more likely to act as though you find her sexually attractive, you will give of the right 'vibes'.

 

So obviously this will be important if you want to attract a woman/hook up with a woman.

 

So, ladies, would you really want guys to not look at you in that way, to not look at you as a sexual creature, and for them to not behave like they're sexual creatures? Would you really rather them not think in that way about you, and wonder about your personality instead, like a neutered nice guy? Would that really turn you on/attract you to him?

If you notice there was no mention of object and talking only about their use.

[Taramere]

Is "sex symbol" an acceptable alternative to "sex object" as a term to describe the focus of one more persons sexual attraction?

 

"Sex symbol" calls to mind celebrities who are famous for having large amounts of sex appeal, but who are also unattainable. "Sex object" sounds more like a thing to be used. I think, anyway.

 

I suppose to get a handle on how it might feel, a man would have to imagine a group of gay having a discussion in which they were assessing his hotness. Whether he would feel the same about them describing him as "a sex object" as he would about being described as a "sex symbol" or being a sexual man.

 

Sexual woman knows what she likes and isn't afraid to initiate sex. Sex object...sees sex as a duty. Something she allows to be done to her in the hope of getting attention/love/money, but doesn't especially enjoy.

 

I'm not a sexual person, really. I don't really care about sex. If I'm in a relationship, we don't even do anything, really. We just watch TV. I'm too lazy ... I'd rather kiss.

 

I would suspect the extent to which she colludes in her own sexual objectification (for publicity purposes) contributes to that apathy. Her behaviour, to me, exemplifies somebody who is a sex object rather than being a sexual person. As to whether she's a sex symbol...I don't know if people admire her or her physical appearance sufficiently for that iconic sounding label to apply.

[somedude81]

Is "sex symbol" an acceptable alternative to "sex object" as a term to describe the focus of one more persons sexual attraction?

IMO, sex symbol is a woman's word.

 

I have never heard or seen a man use it.

 

If you ask man, "Who do you think of when you hear sex symbol." He'd most likely blank out or say some porn star.

 

Asking the same question of a woman and she may give you a list of names from both genders.

[serial muse]

 

Sexual woman knows what she likes and isn't afraid to initiate sex. Sex object...sees sex as a duty. Something she allows to be done to her in the hope of getting attention/love/money, but doesn't especially enjoy.

 

Well put.

 

Somedude, I don't really think it's off-topic to discuss the use of the word "object" in this context. The answer to the OP's question is clearly that many women don't want to be seen as any kind of object, but are happy to be seen as sexual beings.

 

To be honest, I don't understand why you wouldn't be happy to have this insight. It's an important one - that language DOES matter, and that if you want to foster a real connection with a live woman, it's worth keeping that point in mind, rather than brushing it aside as unnecessary. Perhaps to you it is unnecessary; but clearly, it pushes buttons for many women, so since we're asking about what women think, I don't much see the point in telling them that their viewpoints are irrelevant. This is what they (we) see as the important point, and the true answer to the question. Why not try to absorb the information rather than contest it? Or, if that's not an acceptable option, then why ask the question at all?

[Taramere]

Here's a start.

 

 

If you notice there was no mention of object and talking only about their use.

 

He's set the tone with the thread title. "Do you women not want to be seen as sex objects?" He then goes on to describe how, when he's with a woman he finds attractive, he thinks about her naked breasts, having sex with her etc.

 

I imagine how this would look in practice, and the vision I get is of a woman chatting about where she's going on holiday, while Ross stares fixedly at her breasts going "Uhuh. Mmmhmm." Which wouldn't be light-hearted flirtation. It would just be creepy and rude. Sexual objectification...and there are men who behave as boorishly as that with women.

 

When I'm talking to a man whose giving off a vibe of sexual interest in a way I find attractive, there'll be a sense that he's thinking on various levels at once. That there's a sexual undertone, but that he's nonetheless focused on the non sexual conversation we're having. That, in other words, he doesn't have a one track mind, but has a mind where thoughts can run on several tracks at once.

[Dust]

He's set the tone with the thread title. "Do you women not want to be seen as sex objects?" He then goes on to describe how, when he's with a woman he finds attractive, he thinks about her naked breasts, having sex with her etc.

 

I imagine how this would look in practice, and the vision I get is of a woman chatting about where she's going on holiday, while Ross stares fixedly at her breasts going "Uhuh. Mmmhmm." Which wouldn't be light-hearted flirtation. It would just be creepy and rude. Sexual objectification...and there are men who behave as boorishly as that with women.

 

When I'm talking to a man whose giving off a vibe of sexual interest in a way I find attractive, there'll be a sense that he's thinking on various levels at once. That there's a sexual undertone, but that he's nonetheless focused on the non sexual conversation we're having. That, in other words, he doesn't have a one track mind, but has a mind where thoughts can run on several tracks at once.

 

Somedude has a very one track mind. He doesn't seem to pull in information past a certain point.

[Ross MwcFan]

He's set the tone with the thread title. "Do you women not want to be seen as sex objects?" He then goes on to describe how, when he's with a woman he finds attractive, he thinks about her naked breasts, having sex with her etc.

 

I imagine how this would look in practice, and the vision I get is of a woman chatting about where she's going on holiday, while Ross stares fixedly at her breasts going "Uhuh. Mmmhmm." Which wouldn't be light-hearted flirtation. It would just be creepy and rude. Sexual objectification...and there are men who behave as boorishly as that with women.

 

When I'm talking to a man whose giving off a vibe of sexual interest in a way I find attractive, there'll be a sense that he's thinking on various levels at once. That there's a sexual undertone, but that he's nonetheless focused on the non sexual conversation we're having. That, in other words, he doesn't have a one track mind, but has a mind where thoughts can run on several tracks at once.

 

Well it's not like I make it obvious, I always make sure they're not looking. I'm not even sure if I do stare fixedly at them. But I guess I will repeatedly look, just like how women supposedly do when they see a guy who they think is hot.

 

Am I being creepy? I don't know. I've never felt like I am. I mean, to see a woman who has the type of body and/or face that I really like, it would just feel unnatural to suddenly look away and to try and blank the sexual thoughts/the fact that I think she looks hot out of my mind.

 

Do most guys actually do this?

[Ross MwcFan]

That being said, I probably do stare more and think 'I wish', than most other guys, since I've never had a real woman.