The sexual objectification of men.

[Woggle]

It is perfectly natural for both men and women to be sexually attracted to each other. We can do that and still respect each other. The only issues I have is the way some feminists will raise a big fuss about anything where men look at women in a sexual way then view it as empowering when women do it. Ogle me all you want but when you do in a hateful and misandrist manner so you can give men a taste of our own medicine then it is an issue.

[Taramere]

Yes! That's the impression I get from reading these posts, and perhaps what I was trying to enunciate. Like Taramere, I rarely meet men who seem in crisis in the course of my everday life. It's likely, as Hokie suggests, because of the networks I inhabit.

 

I wonder if sometimes it's down to people applying a level of passion in their online debating technique that isn't necessarily indicative of how they feel on a personal level.

 

A while back, at the behest of some friends I got involved in debating on Facebook over a very divisive local issue. All kinds of people were involved. Essentially, it was big business, and the people who tend to ally themselves with the wealthy and powerful (let's call them sycophants for the sake of brevity) against everybody else. I believed in the side I was arguing for, but it wasn't something that I felt particularly emotional about.

 

At one point I was getting trolled and abused by one of the businessmen's sycophants. One of the businessmen liked my responses to this sycophant and PMd me to distance himself from the guy. Then he wrote something along the lines of "I can see you feel very passionately about this issue, but from my perspective..."

 

I wrote back the truth...that actually, I hadn't felt all that passionately about the debate before being asked to join in, and once I stopped contributing to the debate the issue would slip to the bottom of my list of priorites - then fall off it altogether. Arguing with passion and conviction doesn't necessarily mean that the topic you're arguing about is something occupying your thoughts in the normal course of events.

 

I can imagine a few guys I know getting into a passionate discussion online about masculinity, and possibly posting angrily against feminism...but once they logged off, they would be thinking about something else altogether. Then I can think of a very small minority who, if they got into a debate like that, probably wouldn't be able to switch off and would become obsessive about it for weeks, months and years.

 

The crisis of masculinity might well be something that is restricted to those individuals...whose personal circumstances and misfortunes have perhaps encouraged them to obsess over it. People who have become overly preoccupied with the topic of masculinity to the point where they just can't switch off from thinking about it.

 

There are so many other things out there to think about and take a passionate interest in. Plenty of men out there living productive lives, happy in their relationships and being good fathers. I don't know that there's a universal crisis of masculinity...though it might feel like one to those whose personal circumstances have thrown them into crisis to the extent that they believe (or want to believe) that it's something every other man is also going through.

[darkmoon]

OP wrote -

 

"however, masculinity seems to be predominantly measured through sexuality: the capacity to sleep with as many women as possible (the hotter the better)."

 

who says so? sorry, but if a man behaves like this, i can barely stand the thought of him kissing me, a woman, wondering where else his lips have been

[Kamille]

OP wrote -

 

"however, masculinity seems to be predominantly measured through sexuality: the capacity to sleep with as many women as possible (the hotter the better)."

 

who says so? sorry, but if a man behaves like this, i can barely stand the thought of him kissing me, a woman, wondering where else his lips have been

 

The full citation reads:

 

For many of the guys on these boards nowadays, however, masculinity seems to be predominantly measured through sexuality: the capacity to sleep with as many women as possible (the hotter the better).

 

 

 

I can think of a few posters who like to reduce the debates to the afore-mentioned "Women date for love/money, men for sex". Oddly, none of them have yet posted on this thread.

[udolipixie]

Seems to me it's a sexual expectation of guys rather than sexual objectification. I'm not seeing it's regarding or treating guys as a body, or collection of body parts to be used for one's pleasure. As to me if gals were seen as existing to serve guys pleasure it'd be 'sexual objectification' & if feminity was defined as being chaste and pure it'd be 'sexual expectation'.

 

From from my observations being a provider was the dominant representation of masculinity in a partner. That the capacity to sleep with as many women as possible was and is the dominant representation of masculinity for heterosexual guys. There's long standing spread seed with multiple gals, master key/sh*tty lock, slut double standard, guy has to work for it, it's something lauded for guys (Casanovas, Don Juans, rakes), and associating masculinity with sexual virility shown through multiple gals and having sexual abundance with young attractive gals. Seems what it means to be a man in the heterosexual sense is being attractive to young attractive gals, greatest goal for a man is no strings sex with multiple young attractive gals, and partner for a guy is providing.

 

I say if masculinity is predominantly measured through sexuality it's not being emptied of its meaning though it may be to the detriment of guys who don't wish to be measure in that way. The detriment depending on how important it is to such guys that they measure up to others or will be seen as a man by others through standards they don't value.

[joystickd]

The full citation reads:

 

 

 

I can think of a few posters who like to reduce the debates to the afore-mentioned "Women date for love/money, men for sex". Oddly, none of them have yet posted on this thread.

They know deep that that it doesn't work like that. Everyone has different motives and honestly the people that say women date for this and men date for that most likely have has horrible experiences that have repeated a few times and have failed to do the much needed reevaluation of what they are doing to contribute to this problem because they hate to acknowledge that they have some level of accountability in these situations.

[Ariadne]

Up until the mid 70s, the dominant representation of masculinity was actually that of provider. Men were expected to lead, provide and protect...has masculinity been emptied of its meaning, to the detriment of men?

 

Yes,

 

And it's very simple.

 

Men then had some value. They would be providers and protectors.

 

Nowadays women are being told to fend for themselves and be "independent".

 

Men have bought into this idea and absolutely love women that are independent, so they don't have to provide and only have to pay half.

 

Now....do women want men like this?

 

Why was it that in the past women sought to marry men that were well off? So that they could have a nice place to live and care for their own children.

 

Now the only thing that men can do is provide for sex, while women spend the whole day in the office.

 

So, men have become sex objects at best.

[udolipixie]

Yes,

 

And it's very simple.

 

Men then had some value. They would be providers and protectors.

 

Nowadays women are being told to fend for themselves and be "independent".

 

Men have bought into this idea and absolutely love women that are independent, so they don't have to provide and only have to pay half.

 

Now....do women want men like this?

 

Why was it that in the past women sought to marry men that were well off? So that they could have a nice place to live and care for their own children.

 

Now the only thing that men can do is provide for sex, while women spend the whole day in the office.

 

So, men have become sex objects at best.

 

Men now have some value and more than some depending on what a person values. Some are providers and protectors.

 

Some gals want guys like that who only pay half as they don't expect their partner to pay fully.

 

Having a nice place to live and care for their own children is a likely reason why in the past women sought to marry men that were well off. As well as in the past gals also tended to have less education and career opportunities usually depending on a guy for financial survival.

 

To you and others who think as you do the only thing men can provide is sex. My experiences have been that guys doesn't providing everything (pay full) rather than it's similiar or equal to what she brings (pay half).

 

I'm definitely not seeing guys becoming sex objects at best . Not with the increasing 'her orgasm is her responsibility', regulating sex as an expected duty where her consent/desire is not a good enough reason, as well as the low chance of orgasm and if there are any it'd like be less then half the time as their partner (Galinsky & Sonenstein 2011).

[Woggle]

It's women who wanted to be independent not rely on a man for money which is a good thing but don't blame men because most don't want to support an able bodied adult. We a woman to be an equal partner which is what women have been asking of men the past few decades but now all of a sudden it is what women don't want?

 

If a woman sees money as the only value a man has I don't want to be with her anyway. Let her leech off of another man.

[dasein]

I hear you though, men are called some really harsh things when they don't adhere to the strict guidelines of what a man is supposed to be.

 

@wholigan, since it has been made an issue in the thread, do you feel any such pressures here on LS? Have any male posters, or any other posters here assessed your virginity harshly, for example? I'm genuinely interested in knowing as of course I haven't read every post directed your way on the virginity topic. Not talking about the "I don't want an inexperienced man" threads generally, but rather specific responses to -you- personally as a virgin here.

 

@thread Re: "authenticity" and "alienation - Perhaps this will be the thread to discuss Heideggerian "BS" d'arthez . The term "authenticity" is overused to the point of meaninglessness today IMO, despite being one of the most important contributions of 20th century Continental philosophy. It has become a catchall for "keeping it real," and any number of other notions, thus semantically null. In Heidegger, at least ZuZ, it denotes a very specific kind of ontic awareness of the void at the base of human existence, of the ontological reality of an essenceless being that is "thrown into the world," for whom the nature of its existence is an issue, and is not at all mutually exclusive with feelings of alienation or any emotion or attitude other than "distraction," as d'arthez alludes, maybe even congruent or comorbid with such feelings. It is certainly a harsh, even terrifying realization at first, particularly for those who have taken comfort in religious faith or other similar preconceived notions about being human in navigating their lives.

 

In other words, Heidegger's notion of authenticity, in itself, is devoid of any ethical or spiritual content, merely acknowledging a "fact" rather than choosing to live a certain way. Now of course, the authentic realization could color one's resulting life choices and ethical decisions, but it's better to frame those choices in terms other than "authentic" to avoid confustion. IMO, used in this strict sense, it has nothing to do with gender roles, of feeling "fulfilled" or not, of any kinds of tangential ethical considerations. It is simply an acceptance of the human place in the ontological question. And I fully realize I'm being a stickler here, hope folks would do their own reading into where the term comes from and cultivate their own understanding and POV. Here, to get started, is a contra (watered down) view to mine more attuned to colloquial usage, mostly reliant on Sarte... Heidegger and Husserl's most famous plagiarist . Note also that the below is a great illustration of the dangers of "wikification," but a good starting point nonetheless:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)

 

If we want to go back a bit to Kierkegaard and the "Sickness Unto Death," for example, such feelings of alienation are a necessary part and parcel of progressing through the various kinds of despair that lead to the more Christian notion of "standing resolute in the face of the power that posits," (not a direct quote, in fact a merged paraphrase of K and H) to affirm the paradoxical nature of human existence in one's orientation towards the world, to "stand" authentically as opposed to "doing" any particular thing authentically. There's an important difference.

 

Turning to masculinity, and will use more Heideggerian notions, but not actual Heidegger, "masculinity" may be explored in reference to Heidegger's "Origin of the Work of Art," (OWA) and "Question Concerning Technology." In the OWA, H posits a particular POV with respect to art as the convergence between the "earth" and the "world," the earth being dirt and the world being relationships that man creates out of dirt (yes butchery but this is LS).

 

The essence of masculinity IMO is the drive to create tools from the earth which are then used to manipulate the earth, to venture out unto the earth, to harness it, in creating the world. The resulting "spoils" are power over and control of one's environment. Tools are used alternatively to protect life, and to take life from perceived threats. In an impersonal sense, the feminine is also a tool that the masculine use in the process of creating progeny. It is important to note that dominance with respect to people is subsidiary, the core drive of masculinity is IMO, dominance of the environment and external threats and forces. Beowulf doesn't walk into the hall and try to beat everyone there, Grendel and Mom come from the -outside- and unexpectedly. This is a very important distinction in assessing what masculinity is.

 

The essence of feminity is to protect life inwardly, to focus more on the earth that is at hand, to use the tools that the masculine creates in reinforcing control and power over the reproductive capacity. For almost of history to date, control of reproduction was at least as daunting an environmental uncertainty as sabre tooth tigers and hostile tribes, and as opposed to creating tools to this end, the primary tool of the feminine is the masculine. In an impersonal sense, the masculine is the primary tool of the feminine. The difference is in that in terms of environmental threat and control, unlike Grendel, the harsh realities of childbirth and raising come from within the preestablished unity.

 

Now we live in a time where these characteristics of masculinity and femininity blend in individual people more than they ever have, and this heightened blending has been sudden.

 

We also live in a time where telecommunications, media, technology generally, and the encroachment in and enhancement of our lives has been equally sudden. The upshot is that we are bombarded by thousands of messages every day telling us what to do, how to behave, who we are, how we are lacking, what we must do or more accurately -buy- to remedy the situation. Chief among this kind of encroaching message are sexually oriented advertising and general sexual cultural messages. Many such messages have political content, and will stop there.

 

Men and women are told every day that we must be having sex, involved in sexual relationships, attempt to be more and more sexually attractive and proficient, or we are "less than" all the other people out there having all the fun. The marketing message underpinnings of this are obvious everywhere.

 

Leaving women here, since this thread was about masculinity, frustration arises when men are told "be masculine and we will want you," attempt tool-creating and using masculinity as described above, and are then told, "wait, that's not enough," you have to comport with all this sexual stuff also, or you are not worthy. We will demonstrate this to you by choosing very, or relatively unmasculine men over you for sex while we are in our prime." Then, upon adapting to the new expectations, men are told, "wait, now you aren't a -real man- enough. Why are you using some cheezy PUA technique to seduce us? Real men don't have to do that. Where are all the good men?" Then men react with "screw this, I'm doing my own thing in light of all these contradictory messages."

 

And right there, in that resolution, and not before, the man becomes truly attuned to masculine power and control of his life and sexuality in affirming his goals in life free of the goals and agendas of others, of orienting towards "what women want," or "what culture expects," or "what the marketers want me to do or buy," goes forth unto the earth with tools and creates the world. The rest be damned. Most men who post here are at some point on that road. The irony is that at the end of that road is where true success with life and/or sex resides, and like many inscrutable things, there's no way to talk oneself there, it has to be walked.

[ThaWholigan]

@wholigan, since it has been made an issue in the thread, do you feel any such pressures here on LS? Have any male posters, or any other posters here assessed your virginity harshly, for example? I'm genuinely interested in knowing as of course I haven't read every post directed your way on the virginity topic. Not talking about the "I don't want an inexperienced man" threads generally, but rather specific responses to -you- personally as a virgin here.

 

Fortunately I cannot say that I have, not by anyone, male or female.

[threebyfate]

I'll have to disagree that there's been any increase in the sexual obectification of men. The studly hungwell stereotype has been around forever where men have reveled in meaningless self-congratulatory bed notching.

 

As far as men being lost, haven't noticed this much in real life but it's rampant on LS since this site draws people in pain, looking for answers. What does happen in real life is that people in general, go through evolutionary stages where there's a subset that get trapped in certain stages.

 

Gender binary terms like masculinity and femininity are defined as traits, behaviours and roles associated to males and females so these terms haven't changed at all. What has been changing are the underlying traits, behaviours and roles associated to males and females because of technological advancements.

 

This is the first interval in the history of humankind where technology is driving human social evolution, pushing the boundaries of these two societal constructs until hopefully one day, the boundaries will break.

 

Vive la révolution!

[udolipixie]

Speak for yourself . Every sexual partner I have in future will not be disappointed

 

I am speaking for myself based on what seems to be the common attitude of American guys.

 

As for your future predictions

[joystickd]

I am speaking for myself based on what seems to be the common attitude of American guys.

 

As for your future predictions

 

When you deal with immature losers or selfish boys that's what you get.

[Crusoe]

And right there, in that resolution, and not before, the man becomes truly attuned to masculine power and control of his life and sexuality in affirming his goals in life free of the goals and agendas of others, of orienting towards "what women want," or "what culture expects," or "what the marketers want me to do or buy," goes forth unto the earth with tools and creates the world. The rest be damned. Most men who post here are at some point on that road. The irony is that at the end of that road is where true success with life and/or sex resides, and like many inscrutable things, there's no way to talk oneself there, it has to be walked.

 

Exactly, it has to be walked, but what I find is that where we once walked along that road as kids, the younger generation are now being left to walk it as adults. That's a harder and more confusing road for them to walk, many struggle with the reality and time is always against them.

[udolipixie]

When you deal with immature losers or selfish boys that's what you get.

Hence why I don't deal with American guys in that context as it seems that most of American guys are or it's becoming increasingly common for them to be what you label 'immature losers or selfish boys'.

[FitChick]

To me the sexual objectification of men means viewing them as sex objects, same as women. We see more slim, toned, ripped guys half or undressed than ever before. Nothing wrong with that. Men and women are sexual beings who take pleasure in viewing attractive people of the opposite sex.

[Kamille]

Could someone please explain to me how the fulfillment of women's orgasm is linked to the original topic: is masculinity reduced to sexuality?

 

I thank everyone for their thoughtful insights so far on the topic. It's definitely given me a lot of food for thought.

 

To be clear: yes, sexuality has long been a part of masculinity. It is only recently, however, that it seems to be such a dominant criteria in defining it.

 

I don't believe in such things as a female or male essence - and if there was such a thing, it's often been misused to justify gross injustices towards the members of both genders.

 

I would argue for a larger definition of sexual objectification, one that includes having it be how your own sexual identity is defined.

 

Anecdotally, I have never been with a selfish partner. That said please, let's keep on topic: how is masculinity defined today, and how does it affects both women and men.

[udolipixie]

Different perceptions to sexuality now seeming like such a dominant criteria. Perhaps it's at the same or similar influence as it was before other aspects have changed in amount making it appear it's increased when it's the same or similar.

 

I don't see a general definition of masculinity other than traits typical to and appropriate to a male. Likely such a definition affects guys more than gals as it often seems guys need to be a told a set criteria of what is a man rather than chose from options or create their own definition. As well as feeling previously that there was a general definition may lead to many feeling castrated or uprooted.

[Kamille]

Different perceptions to sexuality now seeming like such a dominant criteria. Perhaps it's at the same or similar influence as it was before other aspects have changed in amount making it appear it's increased when it's the same or similar.

 

 

Perceptions and approaches to female sexuality is an interesting discussion, albeit not the topic of this thread. You guys are welcomed to start a thread about this topic if you want to pursue this line of discussion.

[Taramere]

Anecdotally, I have never been with a selfish partner. That said please, let's keep on topic: how is masculinity defined today, and how does it affects both women and men.

 

Stereotypically, I would tend to think of a very masculine man who brings a lot of positive energy and presence into a room, tells a lot of funny anecdotes and is generally seen as a dominant force without having to try too hard...but of course, that's the dominant male or "alpha".

 

However, I know women who are like that. I'm sure most people do. There aren't qualities that are exclusively masculine or feminine. Men don't have the monopoly on qualities like honour and courage. Women don't have the monopoly over empathy and the ability to nurture. So it comes down to a man or a woman being what a boy or a girl becomes on growing up.

 

An adult whose choices will probably be tailored to their own particular temperament and circumstances....but who will likely try to conform to traits we generally associate with adulthood. Taking responsibility, being independent, striving for a sense of proportion, managing social conventions without awkwardness, learning the art of discussion and compromise etc.

 

Adulthood isn't always easy for either gender....but I do think there are fairly universal notions of what being an adult entails and in that sense I don't see why it should be so hard for a man to have some clear notion of manliness that fits in with the Twenty First Century.

[ThaWholigan]

Could someone please explain to me how the fulfillment of women's orgasm is linked to the original topic: is masculinity reduced to sexuality?

 

I thank everyone for their thoughtful insights so far on the topic. It's definitely given me a lot of food for thought.

 

To be clear: yes, sexuality has long been a part of masculinity. It is only recently, however, that it seems to be such a dominant criteria in defining it.

 

I don't believe in such things as a female or male essence - and if there was such a thing, it's often been misused to justify gross injustices towards the members of both genders.

 

I would argue for a larger definition of sexual objectification, one that includes having it be how your own sexual identity is defined.

 

Anecdotally, I have never been with a selfish partner. That said please, let's keep on topic: how is masculinity defined today, and how does it affects both women and men.

 

I think that there is a confusion about the inherent energies that exist within each individual male, whereby some are more "masculine" than others. I find that many descriptions of masculinity are very 1-dimensional and rigid, ergo ones perception may be lost as now that the rigid guideline seems to be disappearing, and defining ones own masculinity is a source of great uncertainty and anxiety.

 

This affects a portion of women IMO, simply because there are certain traits that many women are attracted to, which are no longer being assimilated and adopted by younger men. Therefore, I imagine that they find it particularly difficult to be attracted to some guys these days. I don't even think fathers can effectively prevent this as much, simply because of the vastness of the media and peer networks that will influence a young man more.

 

I think that the easiest path to true masculinity in the eyes of the individual man would be to embark on his own individual journey of self-discovery, picking up traits, finding out ambitions and life purposes, and of course, finding out what their strengths are in terms of attractiveness and being able to use them to attract women. There are many ways one can educate oneself, but the importance of objectivity is an important skill to learn.

 

I rambled

[ThaWholigan]

Stereotypically, I would tend to think of a very masculine man who brings a lot of positive energy and presence into a room, tells a lot of funny anecdotes and is generally seen as a dominant force without having to try too hard...but of course, that's the dominant male or "alpha".

 

However, I know women who are like that. I'm sure most people do. There aren't qualities that are exclusively masculine or feminine. Men don't have the monopoly on qualities like honour and courage. Women don't have the monopoly over empathy and the ability to nurture. So it comes down to a man or a woman being what a boy or a girl becomes on growing up.

 

An adult whose choices will probably be tailored to their own particular temperament and circumstances....but who will likely try to conform to traits we generally associate with adulthood. Taking responsibility, being independent, striving for a sense of proportion, managing social conventions without awkwardness, learning the art of discussion and compromise etc.

 

Adulthood isn't always easy for either gender....but I do think there are fairly universal notions of what being an adult entails and in that sense I don't see why it should be so hard for a man to have some clear notion of manliness that fits in with the Twenty First Century.

 

I somewhat agree with this. Masculine energy and feminine energy should be reconciled and accepted within the individual IMO. I feel that some men are more feminine and some women are more masculine and I think they should be more accepting of that and attempt to augment themselves accordingly without alienating their core being.

[William]

If someone will alert me when published, I'll merge all the deleted off-topic posts into an appropriate thread. Be sure to include the thread link. Carry on.

[udolipixie]

Perceptions and approaches to female sexuality is an interesting discussion, albeit not the topic of this thread.

 

Nor was it the topic of my post you quoted.