INTP Dating

[SpaceYeti]

How many girls do you know don't put effort into looking pretty? I won't say it doesn't happen, there are women who don't put any effort into looking good. But most women do. To say they're not invested in their sexual appeal is simply wrong, in most cases.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Okay, people: Firehazard159 has PMed me and claimed that I made assumptions and have gone off making strawman arguments. So, could I ask a favor of anyone who has read this thread, and have you pinpoint where I did such? I'd like to not make such mistakes, after all.

 

[Cognisant]

How many girls do you know don't put effort into looking pretty? I won't say it doesn't happen, there are women who don't put any effort into looking good. But most women do. To say they're not invested in their sexual appeal is simply wrong, in most cases.

Women don't necessarily correlate appearance with sexual appeal, at least not to the same degree men do, between the genders there is a difference in brain structure and male brains are significantly better at *ahem* visual assessment of biomechanical structures, whereas female brains have their own advantages in other areas.

Women do try to look good, hell if I know what definition of "good" they're using half the time but I digress, my point is that (I believe) women consciously dressing themselves with the intention of appearing sexually attractive is the exception, not the norm.

And that’s the point of contention Firehazard159 has with you.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I doubt most women are so oblivious that they don't realize looking pretty = looking sexy in the eyes of men. Perhaps in high school, but I don't think they're stupid enough to miss the fact forever.

 

[Cognisant]

Heh, no stupid isn't the right word, a lot of the male brain is tied up in visual processing because we use it almost exclusively, so it only makes sense that visuals play a more significant role in getting our attention than say personality, but in the female brain the reverse is true because they use their secondary senses (touch, taste, smell, hearing) a lot more, which leads them to make false assumptions about us, just as we make false assumptions about them (because it's easy to forget others don't think like we do).

So even though they're somewhat aware of what looks attractive or not to male eyes, they're inclined to underestimate the extent of the affect, assumedly subconsciously thinking something along the lines of "I'm not trying to look sexy so I'm not going to be seen as sexy", a false belief that's reinforced by the whole males-having-to-make-the-first-move convention because as you know a little sexy goes a long way towards emboldening a guy to say something (aren’t we pathetic?).

 

[Minuend]

What do you mean by "look good"? Don't most people attempt to look good? Both males and females.

It doesn't need to have to have anything to do with wanting acknowledgment for their looks. Humans are constructed so that if you appear (here: dress) sloppy people will think you are sloppy. So you need to dress somewhat decent to be taken seriously. Dressing decently also indicate (not necessarily correctly) self esteem because it shows you care enough about yourself to look after how you dress. It also have the psychological effect that you feel more confident.

Jumping from that to "women invest in sexual appeal" is a huge erroneous leap.

Though, most things discussed here are ridiculous.

Okay, people: Firehazard159 has PMed me and claimed that I made assumptions and have gone off making strawman arguments. So, could I ask a favor of anyone who has read this thread, and have you pinpoint where I did such? I'd like to not make such mistakes, after all.

I didn't really see you addressing his original point anytime, but after a while I stopped reading the debate between you two, so..

 

[Cognisant]

What do you mean by "look good"? Don't most people attempt to look good? Both males and females.

It doesn't need to have to have anything to do with wanting acknowledgment for their looks. Humans are constructed so that if you appear (here: dress) sloppy people will think you are sloppy. So you need to dress somewhat decent to be taken seriously. Dressing decently also indicate (not necessarily correctly) self esteem because it shows you care enough about yourself to look after how you dress. It also have the psychological effect that you feel more confident.

...I think you answered your own question there.

Jumping from that to "women invest in sexual appeal" is a huge erroneous leap.

Didn't I just make that point?

 

[Minuend]

I'm more arguing that the dress decent thing isn't an attempt to look attractive in the sense of getting queries from males.

My question was more along the lines of what spaceyeti could possibly define as "looking good" to come to the conclusion he did.

Oh, did you think it was directed at you? In such case; my bad. I thought it would be clear after using his words (women invest in sexual appeal). I see now that it wasn't.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I don't presume women dress nicely just because they know it makes men attracted to them, but they're certainly not oblivious to the fact, either.

I didn't really see you addressing his original point anytime, but after a while I stopped reading the debate between you two, so..

What was his original point?

 

[Minuend]

I don't presume women dress nicely just because they know it makes men attracted to them, but they're certainly not oblivious to the fact, either.

Neither are men

 

[kantor1003]

Neither are men

Unlike the females social hierarchy, where a woman's position is almost exclusively determined according to their physical beauty (and with good reason; men are primarily concerned with a woman's looks first, the rest second), the male is based more on their prestige, achievements, financial situation etc.. so I would say a girls inclination towards doing the most out of their looks is stronger than in men based on that observation.

 

[Causeless]

I think maybe it has something to do with effort. Women don't necessarily put much effort into being women, at least when younger (no surgery, exercise, minimal makeup, etc) whereas perhaps they do put effort into conversation, personality, etc. Their company is desired because of something they have very little conscious part in, unless they're actively seeking sex themselves/very comfortable with their own sexuality. They're therefore personally invested in other aspects of themselves more than their sexual nature, and sexual interest can obscure or taint perception of these other aspects, such that they're not accurately evaluated.

Attraction to the sexual aspect might therefore be undervalued or even resented sometimes because there is less conscious, personal investment in it, making the self feel detached from the body-on-display and making appreciation of valued traits difficult.

Good insight, I'm brain-stealing this.

 

[Melllvar]

Women invest in their appearance largely as a competition between themselves, me thinks. They don't necessarily do it in a way to be sexually appealing either. I've noticed girls go to a lot of effort to get dressed up and put on make up just to go out with their girlfriends, even if there won't be any guys around. They also sometimes "fix themselves up" in ways that make themselves less sexually appealing, but give them a certain look that I think makes them feel they'll be taken more seriously by other people, regardless of gender.

I'm pretty much agreeing with Kantor, although I don't know I'd agree that women's hierarchy is based mostly on physical attractiveness (but honestly, I've gotten the impression he understands women better than me anyway, so maybe I'm wrong there).

 

[SpaceYeti]

Perhaps it's based on that in high school and college, but I find it's based more on who talks the loudest, after those stages.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

I think that we should just have a sex thread where we all post naked videos and pictures of ourselves. That would make dating easy.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Sure, but I'm already engaged.

 

[cheese]

Investing in looks doesn't necessarily mean investing in sexual appeal, though the appeal may be increased as a result.

Also, I don't mean they're not invested/identified with it at all, more that absolutely no conscious effort went into them being a woman with boobs and a vagina, and often enough the characteristics they consider salient to their sense of self include more than just that, hence the feeling of being reduced to one in a long assembly line of bitches 'n hos - when the individuating traits are not considered a point of attraction, the attraction is no longer to herself, but to a category.

Er, maybe. Of course, most mono-oriented people would report similar top-down experiences, but that merely describes potential for attraction on multiple levels, whereas viewing the-category-of-women as sexual beings already restricts the levels on which they are likely to be appreciated for the reasons mentioned earlier. Or at least, this could be one of the reasons they have for reacting aversely to sexual attraction from the get-go. I don't think I've explained this clearly at all and as usual I'm late for work; sorry for sloppy thinking.

It's probably just something really simple though, like men being seen as potentially more dangerous than women. More likely to violate sexually, and definitely more likely to impregnate. That kind of feeling from a non-favoured male, which includes any strangers, would therefore be a signal of potential danger, and not kindly received. The same danger isn't really present for men, hence the disparity in attitudes.

Wrote this last night; think I dreamt I posted it or something. Woke up to post after post of Cognisant, expounding on my first point. Cognisant you dirty robot bastard.

As for women being aware their looks are sexually appealing/women dressing for other women/status/confidence/other effects, I did read this study/thingo once where there was a strong indication that most women's fashion is to impress other women, and that women will often only dress in ways attractive to males (in their heads, anyway) when specifically out to attract/impress them (eg on a date). (Sorry, I've got no idea where I read it.) Anyway, point is, clothing signals predominantly to other women, not men, except in the case of favoured males/cases where sexual appeal is not the desired effect. Simply being aware of their general effect, intended or not, really can't do much to assuage any discomfort, especially if men do see women as sexual beings from the outset.

Generalising of course, but we're working with that sort of argument at the moment anyway.

(sorry if any of this doesn't make sense/is stupid; need to go)

 

[SpaceYeti]

Ass ass, titties titties, ass 'n' titties!

 

[cheese]

Note to self: long-term relationships correlated with Tourette's.

 

[Causeless]

I think that we should just have a sex thread where we all post naked videos and pictures of ourselves. That would make dating easy.

DS, sometimes I hate you...

...and sometimes I love you.

 

[Melllvar]

Perhaps it's based on that in high school and college, but I find it's based more on who talks the loudest, after those stages.

Maybe in the short term, like who seems to be the dominant figure at the party one night or while a group is out to dinner, but I think the older/wiser/less energetic and testosterony people get the less the "shout loud" thing applies. I certainly remember it being that way when I was younger, but I think now the group hierarchy (which I try so hard not to take part in) is more determined by a combination of factors, at least the longer term "who's better friends with who, who's opinion gets taken seriously, who people gravitate around, etc." stuff. Maybe it's just the people I hang out with though...

... who do still play all the annoying, stupid, petty little dominance games that I loathe with the fire of a thousand suns. But overall I think I've seen it move that direction over the years (I of course am always on the bottom of the hierarchy, since I try not to consciously partake in such bullshit).

Ass ass, titties titties, ass 'n' titties!

I agree.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Investing in looks doesn't necessarily mean investing in sexual appeal, though the appeal may be increased as a result.

Also, I don't mean they're not invested/identified with it at all, more that absolutely no conscious effort went into them being a woman with boobs and a vagina, and often enough the characteristics they consider salient to their sense of self include more than just that, hence the feeling of being reduced to one in a long assembly line of bitches 'n hos - when the individuating traits are not considered a point of attraction, the attraction is no longer to herself, but to a category.

From our transient contact with 99% of the people we see in the world, it makes sense that we judge people based on such a surface level. Most people I know, that are married, are not very attractive (from a completely shallow, external perspective). I think most people are able to differentiate the crowds of people who "have nice boobs" or whatever other physical feature from "people I'm actually interested in on a deeper level."

Unfortunately it's a limitation of our biology that we can only know so many people at any deeper level then "they have a [fantastic/disgusting] [insert physical feature]." For the most part, when someone looks at us in an objectifying way, unless there is something particularly memorable about you, the person is going to forget about you very quickly.

Er, maybe. Of course, most mono-oriented people would report similar top-down experiences, but that merely describes potential for attraction on multiple levels, whereas viewing the-category-of-women as sexual beings already restricts the levels on which they are likely to be appreciated for the reasons mentioned earlier. Or at least, this could be one of the reasons they have for reacting aversely to sexual attraction from the get-go. I don't think I've explained this clearly at all and as usual I'm late for work; sorry for sloppy thinking.

Our looks are an advertisement to people around us. I dress like I'm a hobo, and in turn there will only be a select few women that will see me and think there is something in that they might like (hasn't happened yet though). Someones physical appearance sends the signal that "I'm such-and-such type of person, if that's what you're interested in, talk to me." Humans, being visual organisms, are going to make their first impressions based on how someone looks, and will most likely decide if someone is worth getting to know based on how they look (at least this would probably be the case in social settings, such as parties, bars, clubs etc).

I'm not saying that sexual objectification is completely the fault of the individual being objectified, but everyone is treated as a 'sexual object' by people they don't know (even if it's a 'sexual object' that's unappealing).

It's probably just something really simple though, like men being seen as potentially more dangerous than women. More likely to violate sexually, and definitely more likely to impregnate. That kind of feeling from a non-favoured male, which includes any strangers, would therefore be a signal of potential danger, and not kindly received. The same danger isn't really present for men, hence the disparity in attitudes.

Women are more choosy than men in mates (see sexual selection). There is a lot more at stake for women in a possible sexual encounter - if they're impregnated, they have to spend nine months carrying the child around and are often left being the ones raising a child. For a man, they can go around and impregnate everyone (hypothetically, there would only need to be one man in the entire world, although that wouldn't leave much room for genetic diversity).

As for women being aware their looks are sexually appealing/women dressing for other women/status/confidence/other effects, I did read this study/thingo once where there was a strong indication that most women's fashion is to impress other women, and that women will often only dress in ways attractive to males (in their heads, anyway) when specifically out to attract/impress them (eg on a date). (Sorry, I've got no idea where I read it.) Anyway, point is, clothing signals predominantly to other women, not men, except in the case of favoured males/cases where sexual appeal is not the desired effect. Simply being aware of their general effect, intended or not, really can't do much to assuage any discomfort, especially if men do see women as sexual beings from the outset.

Maybe this?

Note to self: long-term relationships correlated with Coprolalia.

Fixed.

 

[Melllvar]

For a man, they can go around and impregnate everyone (hypothetically, there would only need to be one man in the entire world, although that wouldn't leave much room for genetic diversity).

Hypothetically. In reality most species have (approximately) 1:1 sex ratios for a reason. (you're probably already aware of this though)

 

[Melkor]

Reminds me of this post I made on INFJforums.

Uhm, well, because if I dated DevilDoll we'd make a wondrous INTP couple.


People would find us sitting together reading, totally oblivious of each other, and then after said people tried to flirt with D-doll...

"Sorry, we're kindof on a date." "Yeah, we're an item*lazy stretch*"

"We don't talk about it".

"No... Hrm, did you hear the latest on Animal psychology? Cow's enjoy problem solving
"

"Yar, fascinating"

Oh, and we'd have romantic days at science conventions/libraries!

I'd date anyone that wasn't blatantly obnoxious. (Sorry Cognisant...)

 

[cheese]

From our transient contact with 99% of the people we see in the world, it makes sense that we judge people based on such a surface level. Most people I know, that are married, are not very attractive (from a completely shallow, external perspective). I think most people are able to differentiate the crowds of people who "have nice boobs" or whatever other physical feature from "people I'm actually interested in on a deeper level."

Unfortunately it's a limitation of our biology that we can only know so many people at any deeper level then "they have a [fantastic/disgusting] [insert physical feature]." For the most part, when someone looks at us in an objectifying way, unless there is something particularly memorable about you, the person is going to forget about you very quickly.



Our looks are an advertisement to people around us. I dress like I'm a hobo, and in turn there will only be a select few women that will see me and think there is something in that they might like (hasn't happened yet though). Someones physical appearance sends the signal that "I'm such-and-such type of person, if that's what you're interested in, talk to me." Humans, being visual organisms, are going to make their first impressions based on how someone looks, and will most likely decide if someone is worth getting to know based on how they look (at least this would probably be the case in social settings, such as parties, bars, clubs etc).

I'm not saying that sexual objectification is completely the fault of the individual being objectified, but everyone is treated as a 'sexual object' by people they don't know (even if it's a 'sexual object' that's unappealing).



Women are more choosy than men in mates (see sexual selection). There is a lot more at stake for women in a possible sexual encounter - if they're impregnated, they have to spend nine months carrying the child around and are often left being the ones raising a child. For a man, they can go around and impregnate everyone (hypothetically, there would only need to be one man in the entire world, although that wouldn't leave much room for genetic diversity).



Maybe this?





Fixed.

Hah, thanks for correcting me! I recall you have Tourette's. I have never heard of Coprolalia; now I know the cause of that man's strange behaviour on the bus months ago. (I thought it couldn't be Tourette's because there were no obscenities involved - stupid! Incidentally, Adymus should plead Coprolalia next time someone insults his typing system.)

I know, I put the argument across rather poorly. Most people do judge from a 'top-down' perspective, categorising from superficial impressions that presumably give insight into deeper-rooted tendencies, and arrange interaction around that. That's not my issue - I'm aware of it, it's disappointing, but we simply haven't the capacity to process that amount of discrete information, so blooey to that.
What interested me here was the fact that some/most women do seem to be bothered or offended by the perception of themselves as sexualised beings (and some men appear to feel insulted on their behalf too, eg Firehazard), and it's something I've hardly observed amongst guys. In other words, this appears to be a reaction that goes beyond the usual I'm-more-than-my-nerdy-spectacles complaint, since that is more or less universal. I can't tell if this is because
a) It doesn't bother men,
b) Women don't tend to automatically sexualise men* or,
c) The sexualisation of women is seen to be more dangerous for them than it is for men (instincts honed through evolution)

Interestingly, the only times I've observed genuine discomfort in guys akin to what I've observed in ladies is around gay men/in a gay bar, and occasionally around clearly interested but unattractive women. This would lend itself well to a) and b) - men, having sexualised women, would be more than happy if the favour was returned (as long as the source is suitable sexually); and/or men are not used to being objectified in this manner, and given the experience from an unwanted source, are extremely uncomfortable. This could be an equivalent to and give useful insight into the reasons for the female experience, if it is true that overt sexual attention from unfavoured people is unpleasant: since the selection criteria for women is much more stringent than for men, sexualisation in general would be an unpleasant experience.

I'd also argue that sexualisation is different in effect to the more standard form of objectification. 1) It carries on into relationships, and is supplemented rather than replaced by additional knowledge about the person, and 2) It carries greater potential for aggression than simple objectification - the latter dismisses altogether, but the former dismisses the inside and then weighs the outside, and in that weighing are the seeds of aggression: against personal space, personhood and personal vagina.

Obviously I'm not implying all men rape sexy women on sight, or even that they want to, but the break in connection that occurs as a matter of course in standard dismissal/people-as-furniture/urban-crowds is incomplete when the furniture is sexualised. Again, not that this is inherently dangerous/distasteful, but it could go some way towards explaining any additional resentment/degradation women experience; whereas men fade rather easily into the background after short appraisals (if any), women remain on display for longer. The length and nature of their evaluation is therefore different to men's: longer, and more aggressive. "That man has a nice nose" carries different possible implications to "That woman has a nice rack". Noses do not usually instigate action; breasts are far more likely to. I think the rack comment is closer to "That man is black"; both are more commonly associated with the possibility of action. Which is not to say that appreciating a nice pair is a form of sexism (although perhaps it is, dunno) my point is it carries more potential for intrusion and hence danger, and this could partly explain aversion to being sexualised, along with extended evaluative periods in public and the detachment of its subject matter from the person's sense of self.

*That study you linked isn't the one I read, but it looks very interesting; going off it (the little I've read so far) I'd be inclined to think that not everyone is treated as a sexual object, simply an object, prior to further interaction.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@ Everyone

I don't think it is such a productive idea to discriminate people genders to perform an analysis on such a topic. Generally from what I have observed in these debates is that people manifest a position based on a warped perception of reality which has been propagated since birth by various pseudo figures of authority such as the speaking box, all of which is somewhat counter productive to the understanding of each other.

When you take the time to observe the people in your surroundings, regardless of gender, people are sexualising other people around them; girl staring at my crutch for two straight minutes while licking her lips, guy playing with change in his pockets, girl stroking up and down the shaft of a wine glass, guy staring at some girl's breasts, girl masturbating in the middle of a lecture, guy masturbating in the middle of a lecture, etc... Hold a gaze with a girl's eyes for thirty seconds and wait until she looks repulsed or is about to melt at the knees. The sexualisation of other is not isolated to gender and there is no broad differences.

Fun fact/observation: After many years of attending lectures and giving lectures I observed more females masturbate in lectures than males.

The common misconception about how one gender sexualizes more than another revolves around how the different genders communicate in their gender group and between. As a forum member has posted before: Males seek an auditorium to pronounce what ever topic to captivate their audience, deal with the hecklers and subsequently form a hierarchy. A very overt system of communication. Females on the other hand involve close bonds and intimate conversations. A somewhat isolated system.

When the topic sexual of nature appears guys will be open about it because it is a competition between each other due to the fact they are forming a hierarchy. If a female is in the group or part of a conversation she will observe how open the males are about and misconceive the very nature of the situation. The female will come up with terms such as men are pigs mistaking that the whole event is a simple power play.

I once was put in situation which encapsulates something that men don't often hear unless they are working with predominantly women: A friend of loaded a female friend of a friend on me that turned out to be my girl friend's best friend but she did not know me (that was confusing). The girl appeared to be extremely uneasy around me for no apparent reason and my attempts at normal conversation were not working and by damn I didn't want to spend the next 8 hours with someone that is misconstruing reality. To remedy the situation I told her I was gay. It worked and she became quite outgoing. The conversation we had eventually lead to my girl friend's boyfriend (which was me) and specifically my physical attributes. This girl knew more about my penis than I did. For the duration of the twenty minute conversation on that particular topic her eyes were fully dilated. The topic at hand obviously turned her on. It is obvious she was sexualizing something (mostly likely the general topic not the specifics). This outlines the isolated intimate mode of communication that females tend to use. I was somewhat taken back by the level of detail. Due to the fact that the conversation was not overt and directed at a group of people it is subjectively perceived that the process is less sexual of nature. This scenario has propagated itself numerous times.

These two examples display how the difference in the modes of communication leads people to think one gender is more sexual in nature than the other.

Most of what you believe on the subject is in all circumstances bullshit.

It is mass manipulation in order make you feel guilty for existing or resent to resent others because of your perception that their thoughts about you is going to make you worthless.

 

[cheese]

I've never seen anyone masturbate in a lecture theatre before.

But then, we were all musicians and likely asexual. --> lie

In fact, I've never seen anyone masturbate in general public before, not that I can remember. Not in cinemas, on park benches, in cars (though I don't look), nowhere. () I suppose I'm not very observant either. Or on the lookout for these things.

Proxy, maybe you've come across a lot of very sexually aware and comfortable women? And I don't think (most of) what I said applies universally; a lot of it is cultural, and restricted to certain portions of the population. The opinions that I was discussing are held though (again, not universally, even within cultures) and I was wondering why.

Also, sexualising someone is different to being attracted to them, or being aroused by a sexual topic, or being in a sexually charged situation.

As well, discussing a boyfriend with a friend is different to discussing the penis of every man you come across (known/favoured vs unknown/unfavoured). Although I really have no idea if one group sexualises more than the other (on a universal or cultural level). I do think though that the sexualisation of the female is generally more immediately dangerous for her than the equivalent for the male (unless in a homosexual situation. Interestingly, the women I've met at least tend to have less problems with lesbian attention than heterosexual male attention - the direct opposite of the men I've met. This is only anecdotal though.).

Also, have a look at AI's link on the differing perceptions of sexual intent between genders. Interesting. This one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744967/

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I've never seen anyone masturbate in a lecture theatre before.

I guess you're never bored shitless during lectures and find it more interesting observing weird expressions people have when they are bored. Though, you tend to also see everything else that they are doing at the same time.

In fact, I've never seen anyone masturbate in general public before, not that I can remember. Not in cinemas, on park benches, in cars (though I don't look), nowhere. () I suppose I'm not very observant either. Or on the lookout for these things.

You must be quite lucky.

Proxy, maybe you've come across a lot of very sexually aware and comfortable women? And I don't think (most of) what I said applies universally; a lot of it is cultural, and restricted to certain portions of the population. The opinions that I was discussing are held though (again, not universally, even within cultures) and I was wondering why.

I don't think it is a such an epiphany for people to realize that yes they do have a sex drive and they do sexualize certain aspects about people's physical appearer or behaviors. However, there are some deluded people out there that seek to deny the existence of such things because some warped perception of reality.

You are wondering why you believe the things you believe, that is very pragmatic thing to do.

Holy crap! If I isolate this large microcosm of the population I can validate my hypothesis. Universal statements are inherently wrong because people alter their behavior to emulate the universal statement; than the statement is validate by the new behavioral paradigm.

Also, sexualising someone is different to being attracted to them, or being aroused by a sexual topic, or being in a sexually charged situation.

Being attracted to someone by the very nature of the process implies that some aspect of that person is being sexualised implicitly or explicitly.

Someone can be aroused due a variety of circumstances; pheromones in the air, long periods of sexual inactivity, girl is ovulating, drugs, fantasizing and all the different scenarios they like to run in their minds. The act of fantasizing involves the sexualisation of some aspect. For some strange reason people tell about all sorts of shit, similar to a confession.

Fun fact: some males can recognize the smell when a woman is ovulating.

As well, discussing a boyfriend with a friend is different to discussing the penis of every man you come across (known/favoured vs unknown/unfavoured). Although I really have no idea if one group sexualises more than the other (on a universal or cultural level). I do think though that the sexualisation of the female is generally more immediately dangerous for her than the equivalent for the male (unless in a homosexual situation. Interestingly, the women I've met at least tend to have less problems with lesbian attention than heterosexual male attention - the direct opposite of the men I've met. This is only anecdotal though.).

You did not refute the nature of the single sided conversation that I was humoring so I am deducing you are in agreement.

The shear fact that you have mentioned 'is different to discussing the penis of every man you come across (known/favoured vs unknown/unfavoured)' indicates that obviously know that this topic of conversation occurs. I know it occurs because I have heard it before. Sexualising different aspects does occur is explicit in the conversation. You may have brought this up to say men engage in hierarchal group discussions involving the sexualisation of women. Women have group discussion involving the sexualisation of the opposite gender but they employ a different format that appears less explicit.

You have outlined the crux of the wide spread issue at hand which involves an argument that is not backed by casual links. I know this because you have mentioned that 'your not implying that all men will go out and rapre women' and 'you think that the sexualisation of females is immediately more dangerous'.

There are two things you actually believe when you logically think about you can invalidate the belief and convey this to others but the fact is you still hold the beliefs even though you can logically invalidate them.

Here is the argument in your mind: The sexualisation of the female gender is more immediately dangerous due to the fact that males want to rape you. Therefore men are the beings involved in the sexualisation process and women don't. Men are involved in the process of sexualisation therefore all men are sexualising you and every other female. Subsequently because men are sexualising you, they want to rape you and rape is detrimental to your propagation of good health.

The above process is not something I have manifested on my own rather it was admitted to by a close friend of mine when I was probing for information to invalidate a hypothesis of mine. It also outlines a misconception about the psychological nature of rape.

Speaking of danger tell that to the 18 year girl that made physical advances on me when I was 13 years old at a party. My first experience in that realm. Awesome.

Also, have a look at AI's link on the differing perceptions of sexual intent between genders. Interesting. This one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744967/

Yeah I had a problem with perceiving sexual intent; when I was twelve years old.

Throughout the years due one's shear interesting in every single topic on earth, one end up reading over 100 books on psychology, facial expression, body language and neurolinguistics. One realizes that one's perceptions in the past were totally false. You must look for body language clusters and be attentive to precise structure of verbal language used convey a message.

Over many years of invalidating hypothesis it becomes rares to fuck up a deduction formed from observations. Though, it occasionally happens.

The false perceptions of sexual intent is generally caused by shear lack of understanding of other individuals. Men may falsely perceived intent from a female because of a misunderstanding about the modes of communication employed. Females falsely male intent based on a misconception that men always have intent generated by the misunderstanding of modes of communications employed.

Nothing annoys me more than a girl falsely perceiving I have sexual intent directed at her based on no information at all and acting on those false perceptions. Responding verbally to correct someone's false thought processes leads them to become quite apprehensive. Though, it amuses me when they ask 'how the hell did you know that?'

 

[knightofni]

For me, the better I look, the easier social interactions are. People are more likely to approach me, more likely to invest their own energy into keeping the interaction/conversation/relationship going. This fills in my own social deficiencies nicely.

I’ve found looking very well groomed and conservatively sexy gets the best response.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

For me, the better I look, the easier social interactions are. People are more likely to approach me, more likely to invest their own energy into keeping the interaction/conversation/relationship going. This fills in my own social deficiencies nicely.

I’ve found looking very well groomed and conservatively sexy gets the best response.

Yup. Statistically, good looking people are more financially and sexually (clearly) succesful than ugly mother fuckers. That's exactly why one day I wll be ultra rich, probably from a YouTube video.

 

[knightofni]

Yup. Statistically, good looking people are more financially and sexually (clearly) succesful than ugly mother fuckers. That's exactly why one day I wll be ultra rich, probably from a YouTube video.

So long as you don’t have elephant-man-like features, “good-looking” is achievable for almost anyone. Things like hair and clothing have an interesting impact on how other people interpret your words and behavior. It’s terribly superficial, but pretty effective.

I’m new. I'm not sure I understand the youtube plan. Can you explain it, or link me to something else you wrote?

 

[cheese]

No no no. First off, this isn't about my head or my opinions as they aren't relevant; I want to get into the heads of these women. Second, that isn't my argument. I don't think all or most men want to rape women. I don't know if all or most women think they do - I doubt it though. I probably should've been clearer: I was hypothesising that the women who feel threatened/insulted/degraded/angered (ie, not all women, just this specific group; dunno how large it is but I have come across a lot, and come across men who feel insulted on their behalf) by sexualisation could feel that way because:

1. There is, perhaps, a link between discomfort and sexual interest from an unfavoured party (demonstrated also amongst men amongst gay men/unattractive women), and since women have much more stringent criteria for selecting partners (presumably as a result of evolutionary forces), resentment would be present most of the time. In other words, most of the men sexualising them would not be potential partners - as opposed to men, where most women sexualising them (if they do - dunno if they do or not) would be considered potential partners, and therefore would not cause discomfort. Quite the opposite, in fact.

2. In general, men are capable of more significant physical violence than women. They are also - at least in the cultures studied, which are basically the ones we're living in and talking about - more aggressive. This, along with the nature of intercourse, makes it more likely for a woman to be raped than a man (backed up by statistics, which again I can't cite, but man-on-woman rape is much more common than its converse). The implications of sexualisation (by men) for women are therefore more potentially dangerous than for men. Of course I'm not saying it's dangerous in every case, or that everyone feels this way, or anything like that. What I meant was that there's a higher chance of a dangerous encounter for women than for men, and this knowledge perhaps heightens the discomfort mentioned above.

I don't think it is a such an epiphany for people to realize that yes they do have a sex drive and they do sexualize certain aspects about people's physical appearer or behaviors. However, there are some deluded people out there that seek to deny the existence of such things because some warped perception of reality.

I was mostly surprised by the girl staring at your crotch and licking her lips. I don't usually see blatant displays of interest from women. (Maybe you've got a nicer-looking crotch.) I'm not saying they don't exist of course, and of course I'm not saying conscious interest doesn't exist. I'm just surprised that you've seen such openness so regularly, because
a) there's still stigma surrounding female promiscuity (which would result in a tendency towards discretion, not as present in males, hence the supposed disparity in openness)
b) I think (but am not sure) women have lower sex drives on the whole because of less testosterone

Anyway that explains my surprise. I wasn't saying sex drives/sexual interest don't exist, but in my head, due to my beliefs about the way the western world works, I thought they'd be less openly expressed.

Also, I'm not saying if women sexualise men or not - and by sexualise I mean from the outset, which is why I made the distinction between discussing every man's penis, and her boyfriend's penis. Discussing someone who is almost always bound to be sexualised because of the nature of the relationship is different to sexualising a larger category. However, I was simply pointing out the difference, and wasn't using this as proof or even an argument that women don't sexualise men. It's quite possible the majority of them do. I suspect culture plays a large role in determining the extent.

Sorry, should've clarified this: earlier, talking about women being on display and evaluative periods and whatnot - that was meant to be a possible mode of thought to explain certain attitudes. I wasn't asserting they were sexualised more (I do see that bias more overtly irl, with the people I know and those around me, but I can't generalise from there).

Being attracted to someone by the very nature of the process implies that some aspect of that person is being sexualised implicitly or explicitly.

Not necessarily; look up asexuality and more specifically romantic asexuals. More research is still required in that area but it does provide a possible and interesting counter to people's assumptions that sexual attraction and romantic attraction are necessarily intertwined (or sometimes, even considered the same thing).

As for not observing masturbation in public - that's probably because I've been in Australia a relatively short time, and since becoming ill I've spent most of my time at home. Previously I was living in a much more, er, repressed country. That probably accounts for part of my surprise about your experiences too. The world has changed and I haven't kept up with it, etc etc.

ps AI's link is actually about how men perceive more sexual intent than women, in both men and women. I'm not sure if you've looked through it, but your comments suggest you think the opposite.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

No no no. First off, this isn't about my head or my opinions as they aren't relevant; I want to get into the heads of these women. Second, that isn't my argument. I don't think all or most men want to rape women. I don't know if all or most women think they do - I doubt it though. I probably should've been clearer: I was hypothesising that the women who feel threatened/insulted/degraded/angered (ie, not all women, just this specific group; dunno how large it is but I have come across a lot, and come across men who feel insulted on their behalf) by sexualisation could feel that way because:

1. There is, perhaps, a link between discomfort and sexual interest from an unfavoured party (demonstrated also amongst men amongst gay men/unattractive women), and since women have much more stringent criteria for selecting partners (presumably as a result of evolutionary forces), resentment would be present most of the time. In other words, most of the men sexualising them would not be potential partners - as opposed to men, where most women sexualising them (if they do - dunno if they do or not) would be considered potential partners, and therefore would not cause discomfort. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Do women a have a more stringent criteria for selecting partners? I have no idea. It is more likely the case that they have just thought about their ideal partner more.

---Below is not an argument but an analysis.---

There is definitely a link between discomfort and sexual interest from a unfavored party. Why do these people feel become discomforted? Probably due to brainwashing since birth. The major issue is that people default to resentment or disgust as if the person has committed an act to warrant such a response but they have not.

Four years ago when I was in my first year of uni I saw a friend outside a lecture I was heading into to. She was talking to another girl. The implicit social contract mandates that I must say greeting before entering the room. As I was approaching I noticed the second girl (not my friend) look at me with a resentful expression. If a person stares at me with such an expression regardless of gender and all logic explaining the situation, I become infuriated. I kept my composure, greeted my friend and then proceeded to enter the room. If she were male I would have beaten that person to a pulp. Though in reality, males are not so careless about displays that provoke aggression.

There are several issues at play here:

1. People lack the ability to understand other people's intentions. This often leads to false perceptions about other's intents and most problematically actions based on the false perceptions.

2. The actions as encapsulated in the example above are generally negative in nature. This is due to people's immaturity.

2. In general, men are capable of more significant physical violence than women. They are also - at least in the cultures studied, which are basically the ones we're living in and talking about - more aggressive. This, along with the nature of intercourse, makes it more likely for a woman to be raped than a man (backed up by statistics, which again I can't cite, but man-on-woman rape is much more common than its converse). The implications of sexualisation (by men) for women are therefore more potentially dangerous than for men. Of course I'm not saying it's dangerous in every case, or that everyone feels this way, or anything like that.

--- Below is argumentative ---

You have totally disregarded the mental capabilities. There are two levels:

1. Mentally capable of engaging in violence.
2. Mentally capable of engaging in violence regarding the opposite gender.

Recent research has uncovered the women are just as mentally capable in engaging in physical violence as men. Whether or not one is physically apt to do is dependent on the individual. Many women are pretty damn physically capable of engaging violence as well.

There is one thing you have totally disregarded; the shear fact of somebody being mentally capable of engaging in violence against the opposite gender does not equate mentally capable of engaging in rape. The goals of each are inherently different.

Whom ever holds the perception that rape is linked to the sexualisation of women are deluded individuals that don't understand the psychological basis of the act. Yes, people do hold this perception and directly translates to these people undertaking immature courses of actions.

What I meant was that there's a higher chance of a dangerous encounter for women than for men, and this knowledge perhaps heightens the discomfort mentioned above.

You should be very uncertain about this statement. In most circumstances the risk dangerous encounters would be equal.

I was mostly surprised by the girl staring at your crotch and licking her lips. I don't usually see blatant displays of interest from women. (Maybe you've got a nicer-looking crotch.) I'm not saying they don't exist of course, and of course I'm not saying conscious interest doesn't exist. I'm just surprised that you've seen such openness so regularly, because
a) there's still stigma surrounding female promiscuity (which would result in a tendency towards discretion, not as present in males, hence the supposed disparity in openness)
b) I think (but am not sure) women have lower sex drives on the whole because of less testosterone

Anyway that explains my surprise. I wasn't saying sex drives/sexual interest don't exist, but in my head, due to my beliefs about the way the western world works, I thought they'd be less openly expressed.

They are falsely perceived to be openly less expressive. It easy to identify people who are trying to be very conscious of their body language. What you have outlined under (a) is correct there is still a stigma and people attempt to adhere to the stigma; I spoke about this in an earlier post. The implicit conclusion of (b) are wrong. Sex drive does not relate to an individuals displays of arousal or intent. There would be a correlation to frequency only. Social stigma causes individuals to be conscious about their body language.

Though, you are mistaken about the girl. She was not displaying interest, she just aroused. Body language of intent is different from the body language of arousal.

Also, I'm not saying if women sexualise men or not - and by sexualise I mean from the outset, which is why I made the distinction between discussing every man's penis, and her boyfriend's penis. Discussing someone who is almost always bound to be sexualised because of the nature of the relationship is different to sexualising a larger category. However, I was simply pointing out the difference, and wasn't using this as proof or even an argument that women don't sexualise men. It's quite possible the majority of them do. I suspect culture plays a large role in determining the extent.

Culture just determines how explicit women are about such a topic. How explicit they are is not based on how much they discuss with each other but how much is divulged to the opposite gender. Heaven forbid men figure out they are just as sexualised as they sexualise women. However, the way which the genders sexualise is different in nature.

Not necessarily; look up asexuality and more specifically romantic asexuals. More research is still required in that area but it does provide a possible and interesting counter to people's assumptions that sexual attraction and romantic attraction are necessarily intertwined (or sometimes, even considered the same thing).

Right, yes, the precious asexuals. The prime example of what the stigma wants to turn us into. Yes, what ever the hell these people do and believe.

I am guessing you are trying to to segregate the different forms of attraction. My response is don't so I won't have to write walls of text.

As for not observing masturbation in public - that's probably because I've been in Australia a relatively short time, and since becoming ill I've spent most of my time at home. Previously I was living in a much more, er, repressed country. That probably accounts for part of my surprise about your experiences too. The world has changed and I haven't kept up with it, etc etc.

A person masturbating in public has absolutely nothing to do with Australia and nothing to do with how sexually expressive a person is. It is just really bizarre behavioral aberration.

ps AI's link is actually about how men perceive more sexual intent than women, in both men and women. I'm not sure if you've looked through it, but your comments suggest you think the opposite.

The article appeared to be mental masturbation. If you would like to bring up points of contention, reference the paragraph relating I would be more than happy to address.

 

[cheese]

Do women a have a more stringent criteria for selecting partners? I have no idea.

Presumably. It is demonstrated in studies, studies of animals, supported by evolutionary tendencies, and so on. I see less reason to doubt it than to support it. Once again though, I'm simply exploring possible reasons for thought patterns. By all means suggest another.

You have totally disregarded the mental capabilities. There are two levels:

1. Mentally capable of engaging in violence.
2. Mentally capable of engaging in violence regarding the opposite gender.

Recent research has uncovered the women are just as mentally capable in engaging in physical violence as men. Whether or not one is physically apt to do is dependent on the individual. Many women are pretty damn physically capable of engaging violence as well.

There is one thing you have totally disregarded; the shear fact of somebody being mentally capable of engaging in violence against the opposite gender does not equate mentally capable of engaging in rape. The goals of each are inherently different.

Whom ever holds the perception that rape is linked to the sexualisation of women are deluded individuals that don't understand the psychological basis of the act. Yes, people do hold this perception and directly translates to these people undertaking immature courses of actions.

I don't consider any of this relevant to the dominant view, which in my circle is that: men are more likely to be violent than women. Again, this is supported by numerous studies and statistics. Therefore, fear around men relating to violence is more warranted than fear around women.

Additionally, the link between rape and violence need not be explicit or necessitated. All I'm trying to understand is why people may think a certain way. Although I would say that there is more than one reason for rape, but it is commonly associated with violence, not sexual desire. However, it is in itself an act with at least some similarities with sex.

Again, most men are stronger than most women. This has the power of numbers behind it. It doesn't matter how many women you know that are stronger than the men you know. Most men are stronger than most women. Therefore, it is more likely you will fear men in areas relating to strength.

They are falsely perceived to be openly less expressive. It easy to identify people who are trying to be very conscious of their body language. What you have outlined under (a) is correct there is still a stigma and people attempt to adhere to the stigma; I spoke about this in an earlier post. The implicit conclusion of (b) are wrong. Sex drive does not relate to an individuals displays of arousal or intent. There would be a correlation to frequency only. Social stigma causes individuals to be conscious about their body language.

Though, you are mistaken about the girl. She was not displaying interest, she just aroused. Body language of intent is different from the body language of arousal.

Fair enough. I should've said that they are believed to be more discreet in most expression though, including that of arousal.

Culture just determines how explicit women are about such a topic. How explicit they are is not based on how much they discuss with each other but how much is divulged to the opposite gender. Heaven forbid men figure out they are just as sexualised as they sexualise women. However, the way which the genders sexualise is different in nature.

I think that culture influences more than just behaviour; it influences the way we think and interact with the elements in our environment as well. However, your opinion and mine are both mere conjectures, and neither are really relevant to the topic I think.

Right, yes, the precious asexuals. The prime example of what the stigma wants to turn us into. Yes, what ever the hell these people do and believe.

I am guessing you are trying to to segregate the different forms of attraction. My response is don't so I won't have to write walls of text.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but it seems to be some sort of dismissal of the existence of asexuals. Ok. I understand you haven't experienced what I have. That's fine. You'll never know what I've lived, and I'll never know what you have.

A person masturbating in public has absolutely nothing to do with Australia and nothing to do with how sexually expressive a person is. It is just really bizarre behavioral aberration.

How many cultures are you intimately acquainted with? In my experience, there is very, very significant difference, right down to the way gender is expressed. I don't know what you're basing this on. It seems just like personal experience. Well my personal experience is: there is a very noticeably stronger sexual focus in the west than in the east.

The article appeared to be mental masturbation. If you would like to bring up points of contention, reference the paragraph relating I would be more than happy to address.

Dunno. Probably nothing important. I can't remember at this point.



Sorry; am a little drunk

 

[DesertSmeagle]

So long as you don’t have elephant-man-like features, “good-looking” is achievable for almost anyone. Things like hair and clothing have an interesting impact on how other people interpret your words and behavior. It’s terribly superficial, but pretty effective.

I’m new. I'm not sure I understand the youtube plan. Can you explain it, or link me to something else you wrote?

Oh sorry. I make youtube videos, but they have not yet seen the success i would have liked. I might be more succesful if i actually took time out to make a good one.
YouTube - My Day
YouTube - Action in the Woods

I like to spam them in this forum to rack up views. And some people seem to enjoy them.

 

[Causeless]

I like to spam them in this forum to rack up views.

The love/hate thing? Here's that flip side.

Thou shalt not spam.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

The love/hate thing? Here's that flip side.

Thou shalt not spam.

Well i guess spam is like rape. Its not spam if you like it.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Presumably. It is demonstrated in studies, studies of animals, supported by evolutionary tendencies, and so on. I see less reason to doubt it than to support it. Once again though, I'm simply exploring possible reasons for thought patterns. By all means suggest another.

Perhaps they have a more stringent criteria. This does not mean they adhere to it. People make some poor choices in their time.

I don't consider any of this relevant to the dominant view, which in my circle is that: men are more likely to be violent than women. Again, this is supported by numerous studies and statistics. Therefore, fear around men relating to violence is more warranted than fear around women.

Women are just as mentally capable to engage in violence as men. However, before someone chooses to engage in violence they perform a risk, cost, benefit analysis and generally those who are physically weaker to not engage due to the perceived threat of detrimental harm to self.

Studies have been conducted on the issues involving the male and females test subjects to be in isolated rooms with a telephone. They are told to call people on a the behalf of a charity and seek donations. Three types of phone call recipients were involved; 1) Polite and donates, 2) Polite and does not donate, 3) Impolite and does not donate. The first two sets of phone call recipients provoked no response in the males. However, for the females in the case of polite and donations they responded by slamming the phone down harder than they normally would. The third set of recipients, the impolite and no donations, provoked little response in the male test subjects. The female test subjects reacted aggressively; slamming the phones, throwing objects around, engaging in hypothetical arguments and displaying aggressive body language.

The test displayed that when women are being observed they display the exact same behavior as what an aggressive male would. Women were quicker to anger and responded with violent behavior.

In general is a greater frequency of males being physically violent against males than females. It is socially unacceptable for males to be physically violent against females so they don't engage in it. The greatest frequency males being physical violence against females is in the domestic sphere. However, the lastest studied about domestic violence produced suggest that the there is a comparable proportion of domestic violence instigated by women against their husbands. It is not a single sided issue domestic violence is caused by both genders.

Additionally, the link between rape and violence need not be explicit or necessitated. All I'm trying to understand is why people may think a certain way. Although I would say that there is more than one reason for rape, but it is commonly associated with violence, not sexual desire. However, it is in itself an act with at least some similarities with sex.

Again, most men are stronger than most women. This has the power of numbers behind it. It doesn't matter how many women you know that are stronger than the men you know. Most men are stronger than most women. Therefore, it is more likely you will fear men in areas relating to strength.

The similarities of rape to sex has absolutely nothing to do with the sexualisation of women in society.

Some women do think this way. I did not refute this. The reasoning behind the perception is wrong.

Fair enough. I should've said that they are believed to be more discreet in most expression though, including that of arousal.

The body language expression by comparison to males is more 'discreet'. The way that women express their arousal, intent and or desire has been well documented.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but it seems to be some sort of dismissal of the existence of asexuals. Ok. I understand you haven't experienced what I have. That's fine. You'll never know what I've lived, and I'll never know what you have.

You are an asexual? Congratulations are in order. You are now different from 99% of the population. The fact that you exist changes the very nature of attraction to its foundations. I don't see how platonic attraction should be categorised as attraction. It is no different from just being friends with the opposite gender.

How many cultures are you intimately acquainted with? In my experience, there is very, very significant difference, right down to the way gender is expressed. I don't know what you're basing this on. It seems just like personal experience. Well my personal experience is: there is a very noticeably stronger sexual focus in the west than in the east.

In Australia, masturbating in public is somewhat of a cultural taboo and is frowned upon to the extent that you would be arrested if reported.

I am basing this on studies, books, reports, invalidating hypothesis and critical observations.

You are Asian? Are you Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Malaysian, Mongolian, from the Philippines, Indonesian, Singaporean, Nepalese, Burmese, Cambodian or Vietnamese? They all have different cultures. Each with their own social problems. Which one are you referring to?

Body language is universal.

 

[cheese]

Perhaps they have a more stringent criteria. This does not mean they adhere to it. People make some poor choices in their time.

This is true. It wouldn't be considered more stringent if they didn't adhere to it some of the time though, or the majority of the time. This would mean they are less frequently receptive to sexual advances than men. It's possible to take it one step further and resent sexualisation in general, since more often than not it would be coming from unwanted sources.

Women are just as mentally capable to engage in violence as men. However, before someone chooses to engage in violence they perform a risk, cost, benefit analysis and generally those who are physically weaker to not engage due to the perceived threat of detrimental harm to self.

I'd disagree with this - people have the capacity for cost-benefit analysis, but they don't always make use of it, especially in situations involving extreme emotions.

Studies have been conducted on the issues involving the male and females test subjects to be in isolated rooms with a telephone. They are told to call people on a the behalf of a charity and seek donations. Three types of phone call recipients were involved; 1) Polite and donates, 2) Polite and does not donate, 3) Impolite and does not donate. The first two sets of phone call recipients provoked no response in the males. However, for the females in the case of polite and donations they responded by slamming the phone down harder than they normally would. The third set of recipients, the impolite and no donations, provoked little response in the male test subjects. The female test subjects reacted aggressively; slamming the phones, throwing objects around, engaging in hypothetical arguments and displaying aggressive body language.

The test displayed that when women are being observed they display the exact same behavior as what an aggressive male would. Women were quicker to anger and responded with violent behavior.

In general is a greater frequency of males being physically violent against males than females. It is socially unacceptable for males to be physically violent against females so they don't engage in it. The greatest frequency males being physical violence against females is in the domestic sphere. However, the lastest studied about domestic violence produced suggest that the there is a comparable proportion of domestic violence instigated by women against their husbands. It is not a single sided issue domestic violence is caused by both genders.

Are you serious? Why would Australia need to have that Australia Says No campaign if violence against women isn't a problem? People don't just stop doing things because they're socially unacceptable. Rape's not considered the height of etiquette, but it happens. The frequency might decrease but it's not going to disappear. Awareness and enforcement do help, but even the safest countries have crime, albeit low.

As for comparable levels of aggression: perhaps. Aggression does not necessarily express itself in physical violence against another person though. Also, the things I've read have been almost always reported disparity between the sexes in aggression and violence levels, though conflicting conclusions are fairly common I think. It's difficult to keep the methods used free from bias. I'd still say that men are capable of inflicting more significant damage than women, given extra body/muscle mass and height, so increased fear in this regard would be reasonable.

The similarities of rape to sex has absolutely nothing to do with the sexualisation of women in society.

What makes you say this? I'd tend to agree; I think a couple of the more relevant issues are a need for power and the dehumanisation of women. I wouldn't immediately discard sexualisation as a reason, but I'm also not discussing rape or the reasons for it. The more pertinent question here is if there are any reasonable arguments to link sexualisation with the dehumanisation of women. (My immediate opinion is that broadly speaking there is no real link, but again, my opinion's not relevant.)

You are an asexual? Congratulations are in order. You are now different from 99% of the population. The fact that you exist changes the very nature of attraction to its foundations. I don't see how platonic attraction should be categorised as attraction. It is no different from just being friends with the opposite gender.

Meh, forget it.

In Australia, masturbating in public is somewhat of a cultural taboo and is frowned upon to the extent that you would be arrested if reported.

I am basing this on studies, books, reports, invalidating hypothesis and critical observations.

You are Asian? Are you Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Malaysian, Mongolian, from the Philippines, Indonesian, Singaporean, Nepalese, Burmese, Cambodian or Vietnamese? They all have different cultures. Each with their own social problems. Which one are you referring to?

Body language is universal.

The body language expression by comparison to males is more 'discreet'. The way that women express their arousal, intent and or desire has been well documented.

I'm none of these. I just lived in the East for a while. Why are you talking about social problems? I was simply speaking of the difference I've observed regarding sex in the East and the West. A crude divide perhaps but I've found it useful in bridging the gap in understanding between myself and the various people I meet. Anyway, this was simply to explain my surprise. It needn't have any greater relevance or accuracy. Perhaps my experiences are too narrow and biased.

Some body language is universal, yes, but we are capable of altering or masking it to an extent, and a lot of what one might consider 'universal body language' might in fact be culturally influenced. Staring and lip-licking seemed far too blatant and conscious to be an uncontrollable reaction, ie one not alterable or shaped by culture, hence my attribution of the expression of her arousal to culture. I could be mistaken though.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This is true. It wouldn't be considered more stringent if they didn't adhere to it some of the time though, or the majority of the time.

How does the above link to below? It appears that a few deductive steps are missing.

This would mean they are less frequently receptive to sexual advances than men.

It's possible to take it one step further and resent sexualisation in general, since more often than not it would be coming from unwanted sources.

Everyone receives unwanted advances from the opposite gender or the same gender. There are a certain few who have undesirable traits which would be less frequently advanced upon. If a person has worth of character they will respond in a mature manner. Responding with resent is an extremely immature course of action.

A question you have not proposed is why would someone become resentful.

I'd disagree with this - people have the capacity for cost-benefit analysis, but they don't always make use of it, especially in situations involving extreme emotions.

Explains why my x girlfriend beat the crap out of some guy who called me a name under his breath. She is a black belt in Taekwondo. Though, she did give him an opportunity to apologise.

Are you serious? Why would Australia need to have that Australia Says No campaign if violence against women isn't a problem? People don't just stop doing things because they're socially unacceptable. Rape's not considered the height of etiquette, but it happens. The frequency might decrease but it's not going to disappear. Awareness and enforcement do help, but even the safest countries have crime, albeit low.

That was a domestic violence campaign. Ironically, the call centre linked to the phone number to call on the advert had received a large proportion (not the majority) of calls relating to wives beating their husbands up. Such situation are propagated because the shear majority of males believe it is wrong to physically harm a female and they feel that no one would take them seriously if reported.

Violence on the streets which is predominantly males engaging in physical violence against males which occurs at a far greater frequency than violence against women. Women engaging in physical violence each other even occurs at high rates in certain age ranges and locations.

As for comparable levels of aggression: perhaps. Aggression does not necessarily express itself in physical violence against another person though. Also, the things I've read have been almost always reported disparity between the sexes in aggression and violence levels, though conflicting conclusions are fairly common I think. It's difficult to keep the methods used free from bias.

If they exhibit the same levels of aggression, they have the same capacity for engaging in violence. There are innumerable accounts recording women beating, torturing, sexually assaulting and psychologically abusing their children. Such crimes are never reported in the mainstream media.

Countless biased articles have been published over the years to further a certain agenda of portraying men as the route of evil.

I'd still say that men are capable of inflicting more significant damage than women, given extra body/muscle mass and height, so increased fear in this regard would be reasonable.

Understanding that because a person is greater than you physically and could potentially cause detrimental harm does translate to fear. If a person has a fear of someone greater than them physically then there is other factors at play with that person.

What makes you say this? I'd tend to agree; I think a couple of the more relevant issues are a need for power and the dehumanisation of women.

Men rape men as well. It is not an act solely perpetrated against women. Gang bangers in London force their male prey to have oral sex with them while putting a gun to their head.

I wouldn't immediately discard sexualisation as a reason, but I'm also not discussing rape or the reasons for it.

I would disregard it. It is a misconception.

The more pertinent question here is if there are any reasonable arguments to link sexualisation with the dehumanisation of women. (My immediate opinion is that broadly speaking there is no real link, but again, my opinion's not relevant.)

There is no reasonable argument to link sexualisation with the dehumanisation of women. Your opinion is correct.

There are some who believe such things but they are quite hypocritical because they don't not view women's sexualisation of men as dehumanising. They are deluded by social stigma or perceived societal values to think that women don't sexualise men.

Meh, forget it.

Ohh, I won't.

I'm none of these. I just lived in the East for a while. Why are you talking about social problems? I was simply speaking of the difference I've observed regarding sex in the East and the West. A crude divide perhaps but I've found it useful in bridging the gap in understanding between myself and the various people I meet. Anyway, this was simply to explain my surprise. It needn't have any greater relevance or accuracy. Perhaps my experiences are too narrow and biased.

I train in Kendo for a hobby. One of my friend's wanted me to train with his group to practice for a tournament we will all be competing in. To my amazement none of them could speak english apart from my friend. All their girlfriends were there as well. Afterwards we all went to karaoke. I had a really fun time even though I don't speak a word of mandarin and had no idea what people were talking to me about. Since, I didn't speak the language I had a surplus time to just observe them. Their exhibits of body language and expression of attraction were no different from what I have observed else where.

Some body language is universal, yes, but we are capable of altering or masking it to an extent, and a lot of what one might consider 'universal body language' might in fact be culturally influenced. Staring and lip-licking seemed far too blatant and conscious to be an uncontrollable reaction, ie one not alterable or shaped by culture, hence my attribution of the expression of her arousal to culture. I could be mistaken though.

Perhaps, some women just don't care to follow imposed societal norms, not consciously aware or off in their own little world disconnected from their surroundings.

Masking body language of sexual intent, desire or arousal has been well documented and can be easily identified. Try not to display and you still display.

To think of it now, not many women care to mask it. Australian culture could be a large part of it. This just demolishes the arguments propagating false perceptions about women's sexuality.

 

[cheese]

How does the above link to below? It appears that a few deductive steps are missing.

Everyone receives unwanted advances from the opposite gender or the same gender. There are a certain few who have undesirable traits which would be less frequently advanced upon. If a person has worth of character they will respond in a mature manner. Responding with resent is an extremely immature course of action.

The assumption is that women receive more unwanted advances than men. This assumption is based on their more selective criteria.

A question you have not proposed is why would someone become resentful.

I've just been throwing around several words describing various states of unease, actually. I don't know if they resent it or feel threatened or scared or whatever. I've come across different responses. To be honest, a lot of women I've met enjoy being sexualised. It's a source of power when rights are more or less balanced between the sexes. When not balanced, it's a source of danger. Perhaps those that do experience whatever negative emotion feel they have less rights? It appears to me to be somehow connected with danger - to the physical self or the mental/emotional self (objectification). Anyway, those are the factors I considered when trying to trace out a path between sexualisation and discomfort of any sort.

If you're asking about resentment in particular, I'd say it has more to do with the second sort of danger - a feeling of being objectified more than the average male, and thus having personhood obscured. Again though, this only applies to some women; some others enjoy the power and veil of secrecy objectification affords (thus increasing power as the core self is protected from direct contact and hence harm).

Explains why my x girlfriend beat the crap out of some guy who called me a name under his breath. She is a black belt in Taekwondo. Though, she did give him an opportunity to apologise.

Aussie girls

No I'm kidding, I'm kidding.


Amongst siblings as well you might observe the weaker one engage in violence when angry. When older this is tempered somewhat by rational consideration as you said. Passionate underdog violence still does occur though.

That was a domestic violence campaign. Ironically, the call centre linked to the phone number to call on the advert had received a large proportion (not the majority) of calls relating to wives beating their husbands up. Such situation are propagated because the shear majority of males believe it is wrong to physically harm a female and they feel that no one would take them seriously if reported.

Violence on the streets which is predominantly males engaging in physical violence against males which occurs at a far greater frequency than violence against women. Women engaging in physical violence each other even occurs at high rates in certain age ranges and locations.

Yeah, I know male-male violence is more common. I think male-male rape is supposed to be the most common sort of rape there is, though it's severely underreported.

I'm not sure why you're bringing this up though. Are you suggesting men have more reason to be afraid than women? Perhaps they are more likely to be attacked, but women often lack the ability to adequately retaliate (weaker, less experienced), at least in the moment (women with resources can later pursue the attacker through other means).

Even if women have less reason to be afraid, I don't see how this affects the issue. They have more reason to be afraid of men than of other women, at least in the area of physical violence. Male-female violence is still more common than female-female, especially sexual violence. (I think.)

If they exhibit the same levels of aggression, they have the same capacity for engaging in violence.

I wouldn't agree with that. Aggression can be expressed in ways other than physical violence (eg passive aggression, malicious gossip, verbal abuse, etc). Men (supposedly) show a greater tendency to express aggression in physically violent ways than women.

There are innumerable accounts recording women beating, torturing, sexually assaulting and psychologically abusing their children. Such crimes are never reported in the mainstream media.

Countless biased articles have been published over the years to further a certain agenda of portraying men as the route of evil.

I doubt it's an agenda, as women have only recently come into any sort of significant power.

However, bias is both possible and likely.

Understanding that because a person is greater than you physically and could potentially cause detrimental harm does translate to fear. If a person has a fear of someone greater than them physically then there is other factors at play with that person.

I meant in considering the potential for harm, size and ability would be a factor.

There is no reasonable argument to link sexualisation with the dehumanisation of women. Your opinion is correct.

I'd say there are, if one doesn't have easy access to all the facts - which most people don't. What they do have access to is popular opinion, their own private circles and their own personal experiences.

The reason I don't hold that opinion is because I (believe I) have additional facts.

There are some who believe such things but they are quite hypocritical because they don't not view women's sexualisation of men as dehumanising. They are deluded by social stigma or perceived societal values to think that women don't sexualise men.

Yes, I've been quite amazed by some of the conversations I've been privy to, on public transport or with female friends. They'll completely objectify a passing stranger and then complain about being treated as sexual objects in the same breath. They will espouse feminism and the championing of women's rights over actual equality. But then, inconsistency is present in most (all?) people, and considering popular opinion on men's appetites and tendencies, their beliefs can perhaps be pardoned. The prevalence of the male over female tendency to violence, sexual assault and sexual activity is supported by numerous studies, which bolsters its marketability. As you've pointed out though, new studies are bringing to light possible biases in previous ones, and will perhaps challenge the prevailing views.

I train in Kendo for a hobby. One of my friend's wanted me to train with his group to practice for a tournament we will all be competing in. To my amazement none of them could speak english apart from my friend. All their girlfriends were there as well. Afterwards we all went to karaoke. I had a really fun time even though I don't speak a word of mandarin and had no idea what people were talking to me about. Since, I didn't speak the language I had a surplus time to just observe them. Their exhibits of body language and expression of attraction were no different from what I have observed else where.

This is among people who know each other, correct?

Perhaps, some women just don't care to follow imposed societal norms, not consciously aware or off in their own little world disconnected from their surroundings.

Masking body language of sexual intent, desire or arousal has been well documented and can be easily identified. Try not to display and you still display.

To think of it now, not many women care to mask it. Australian culture could be a large part of it. This just demolishes the arguments propagating false perceptions about women's sexuality.

Yes, everything leaves a trace. Staring and lip-licking seemed like an expression of uninhibited lust though. (My assumption here is that in the East it is more likely to be inhibited, making this kind of display more uncommon - given the same degree of arousal, the expression would be more discreet due to conscious restraining.) Perhaps I'm interpreting it too narrowly. It sounded like a long, uninterrupted eye-lock on your crotch, ie not a continuous and unintentional drift back. If it was the latter I'm much more inclined to agree it's universal. Same with the lip-licking - was it more like a quick and unconscious flick to the lips, or did she look like an ad for Maccas?

On this point though, I've sometimes caught myself in compromising positions relating to people I have absolutely no interest in. My eyes fall to rest someplace and I wander off in my thoughts; I don't usually register what I'm looking at. Dry air, mozzy bites, other itches etc have contributed to certain behaviour that could be associated with nervousness, arousal or the intent to attract. Because I've read a little into body language, I've become more aware of mine than the average person, with the result that perfectly innocuous behaviour makes me wary of sending the wrong message. Could it be that by 'doing it by the book' you've wrongly interpreted a bunch of innocent actions? Reading a few signs in isolation is different to naturally being in tune with people's body language in general; the latter is more holistic and reliable, I'd say, unless you have a very thorough and complete grasp of body language (I'm not sure if this level of understanding can be taught without some natural affinity) that takes into account every minute change and the relation of each part to the whole picture, and then again to the context.


General note:
I don't have in-depth knowledge on any of these issues. I'm not an expert on rape or violence. That's not really what I was trying to talk about, but this has been interesting in directing me towards more areas of study. Beyond my hypothesising, I probably can't provide any more concrete data than anyone else.

My main point was (iirc):
Sexualisation could be more psychologically distressing for women than for men because of differences in desirable-partner thresholds, physical strength, rates of sexual violence, and possibly frequency of sexualisation, leading to a more cautious, fearful mindset.
---> whether or not rates of general violence are equal is not relevant here, I think.

Additionally, sexualisation may tend to obscure the self, especially where the self is not strongly invested in sexual appeal. This could be more distressing for women than for men because
Women are sexualised more (which assumes that sexualisation is generally unpleasant), or
Women desire a smaller range of men (ie, most of the men doing the sexualising are unwanted and akin to the gay men/repulsive woman experience for hetero men).
I'm sure there are other possible reasons.

What exactly is sexualisation anyway? I'm starting to get lost in the words. I don't really think it's possible for men not to see women in a sexual light. However, it may be similarly difficult for women to revise their attitudes. (Not really; I think attitudes are a lot more revisable than sexuality.)


Hmm... I'm actually starting to wonder if rape may occasionally be an expression of default equality, at least from the male POV. Considering everything is out there to be conquered and dominated, seeing the female as simply another rival instead of being either unduly elevated to an untouchable pedestal or beneath one's notice (sometimes the latter leading, through a series of convoluted and condescending arguments, to the former) could be a signal of equality. The victim has been given a 'fair go' and has lost.

More traditionally and generally though it's associated with male entitlement.

(And I don't mean to imply that rape is an acceptable expression of equality, simply that it may be one in antisocial males with a strong drive to dominate.)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Has this thread hugely gone off topic?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I doubt it's an agenda, as women have only recently come into any sort of significant power.

However, bias is both possible and likely.

Some people out there always have an agenda.

I meant in considering the potential for harm, size and ability would be a factor.

I knew what you meant.

Yes, I've been quite amazed by some of the conversations I've been privy to, on public transport or with female friends. They'll completely objectify a passing stranger and then complain about being treated as sexual objects in the same breath. They will espouse feminism and the championing of women's rights over actual equality. But then, inconsistency is present in most (all?) people, and considering popular opinion on men's appetites and tendencies, their beliefs can perhaps be pardoned. The prevalence of the male over female tendency to violence, sexual assault and sexual activity is supported by numerous studies, which bolsters its marketability. As you've pointed out though, new studies are bringing to light possible biases in previous ones, and will perhaps challenge the prevailing views.

It is interesting to note that the sectors of the society that are most prone to violence are the ones that are relatively uneducated.

This is among people who know each other, correct?

No. Half the people there that turned up were being introduced to everyone else.

Same with the lip-licking - was it more like a quick and unconscious flick to the lips, or did she look like an ad for Maccas?

More like an add for maccas. When someone wets their dry lips it is somewhat different than arousal.

On this point though, I've sometimes caught myself in compromising positions relating to people I have absolutely no interest in. My eyes fall to rest someplace and I wander off in my thoughts; I don't usually register what I'm looking at. Dry air, mozzy bites, other itches etc have contributed to certain behaviour that could be associated with nervousness, arousal or the intent to attract. Because I've read a little into body language, I've become more aware of mine than the average person, with the result that perfectly innocuous behaviour makes me wary of sending the wrong message.

What made your position compromised? The person could have just approached you for reasons other than your body language.

Could it be that by 'doing it by the book' you've wrongly interpreted a bunch of innocent actions? Reading a few signs in isolation is different to naturally being in tune with people's body language in general; the latter is more holistic and reliable, I'd say, unless you have a very thorough and complete grasp of body language (I'm not sure if this level of understanding can be taught without some natural affinity) that takes into account every minute change and the relation of each part to the whole picture, and then again to the context.

Six years ago I use to screw up my readings of people's body language all the time. You just have to learn from your mistakes. The main reason why I decided to study such things was to determine whether or not someone is actually interested in my interactions with them. One thing you must always look for is body language clusters and how they relate to the environment.

My main point was (iirc):
Sexualisation could be more psychologically distressing for women than for men because of differences in desirable-partner thresholds, physical strength, rates of sexual violence, and possibly frequency of sexualisation, leading to a more cautious, fearful mindset.
---> whether or not rates of general violence are equal is not relevant here, I think.

Additionally, sexualisation may tend to obscure the self, especially where the self is not strongly invested in sexual appeal. This could be more distressing for women than for men because
Women are sexualised more (which assumes that sexualisation is generally unpleasant), or
Women desire a smaller range of men (ie, most of the men doing the sexualising are unwanted and akin to the gay men/repulsive woman experience for hetero men).
I'm sure there are other possible reasons.

Women who believe the above have something wrong with them. It is not the normal expression of deductive reasoning. Perhaps, they have suffered abuse in the past, have been brained washed etc...

What exactly is sexualisation anyway? I'm starting to get lost in the words. I don't really think it's possible for men not to see women in a sexual light. However, it may be similarly difficult for women to revise their attitudes. (Not really; I think attitudes are a lot more revisable than sexuality.)

Rrriiiggghhhtttt..... Please present your arguments and evidence for what you think. I don't think it is possible for women not to see men in a sexual light.

Hmm... I'm actually starting to wonder if rape may occasionally be an expression of default equality, at least from the male POV. Considering everything is out there to be conquered and dominated, seeing the female as simply another rival instead of being either unduly elevated to an untouchable pedestal or beneath one's notice (sometimes the latter leading, through a series of convoluted and condescending arguments, to the former) could be a signal of equality. The victim has been given a 'fair go' and has lost.

You misunderstand the nature of rape. Holding a the above perception is counter-productive.

More traditionally and generally though it's associated with male entitlement.

Errr, no.

(And I don't mean to imply that rape is an acceptable expression of equality, simply that it may be one in antisocial males with a strong drive to dominate.)

 

[DesertSmeagle]

This is really much to broad a topic to argue about. Lets sum it up.

Female fasion is made to be sexually stimulating. Girls are sex symbols of society. Have you ever seen a male wearing skin tight shorts with his bulge obnoxiously showing? ive seen girls wearing shirts where their breasts are hanging out. If a guy dresses like that, hes arested.

Though the female is a sex symbol, the male must go through obstacles to get to her vagina, because males only like sex, everything else is a lie. Relationships are sexual. The male and female get together and mate to reproduce, and this is a norm. Funny that something so natural, reproducing for the survival of the species, has become a social norm.

Dating is societies manifestation of reproduction for the survival of the human species, like the brain, it is incredibly complicated. Think about it. Why do you want to date? Because nature is telling you to fuck to make babies so we dont become extinct. Society has taken this natural process and socialized it...BOOM..thats some good shit right there...I win.

 

[DarkGreen]

Though the female is a sex symbol, the male must go through obstacles to get to her vagina, because males only like sex, everything else is a lie. Relationships are sexual. The male and female get together and mate to reproduce, and this is a norm. Funny that something so natural, reproducing for the survival of the species, has become a social norm.

Um, no. You talk like we're animals but we can THINK. Marriage is there for a lot of reasons, be rational about it not dumb. Like, you're able to tell if the other is serious. You can spend time with your favorite person. You can develop a deep and fun relationship. This of course is church based so it's based on God for a reason, there are a lot of wise parables in the bible like Proverbs. Sometimes, even INTP's need help and the Bible provides for that. Dating can be a trial period, if you like the person. Just, Smeagle, stop thinking with your reproductive organs and use your brain.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

@last two posts and most of this thread
and here I was contemplating changing my usertitle today

 

[Melllvar]

Has this thread hugely gone off topic?

I'm pretty sure this thread didn't actually have a topic. It's sort of like a Rorschach test: everyone projects their own meaning onto it.

This is really much to broad a topic to argue about. Lets sum it up.

Female fasion is made to be sexually stimulating. Girls are sex symbols of society. Have you ever seen a male wearing skin tight shorts with his bulge obnoxiously showing? ive seen girls wearing shirts where their breasts are hanging out. If a guy dresses like that, hes arested.

Though the female is a sex symbol, the male must go through obstacles to get to her vagina, because males only like sex, everything else is a lie. Relationships are sexual. The male and female get together and mate to reproduce, and this is a norm. Funny that something so natural, reproducing for the survival of the species, has become a social norm.

Dating is societies manifestation of reproduction for the survival of the human species, like the brain, it is incredibly complicated. Think about it. Why do you want to date? Because nature is telling you to fuck to make babies so we dont become extinct. Society has taken this natural process and socialized it...BOOM..thats some good shit right there...I win.

That was the worst summary... ever.

because males only like sex, everything else is a lie.

???

 

[Cavallier]

This is what I've divined about men and women according to this thread:

1. Women are sex symbols.

2. Women are socially stratified according to sexual attractiveness.

3. The women who are intelligent, not emotionally oriented, and aren't overly extroverted don't exist though paradoxically were they to exist they would be extremely attractive to certain men. I can only assume this is because they would be more like men but with BOOBIES!!!!

4. Women are uninteresting and only really good for putting your penis in.

5. Women are easier to get along with but only when they are fawning over the look of your eyes.

6. Men are in need of a futuristic gun that pumps women full of testosterone in order to bring up the women's sex drive. Apparently this is a hilarious concept.

7. Assertive, aggressive, and arrogant men always get the girl. Intelligent and gentle men get nothing.

8. I'm not even going to paraphrase this part: "Girls decide whether or not they're going to fuck a guy within the first five minutes of meeting him. After that they just think, 'I hope he doesn't do something stupid to screw it up.'"

9. You can cry on the shoulder of a girl but not a guy.

10. There is such a thing as the "guy friend" category and you can't get laid if you are in that category.

11. Women are only good so long as they do what they are told.

12. The major driving force for men is getting laid.

13. When the above derogatory things are discussed in a thread the wummenz get angry and shut that thread down.



Somewhere in there Proxy and Cheese managed to muster a conversation that didn't reduce both genders to stereotypes and AI had some interesting input on this discussion as a whole. Otherwise, in response to Echo prodding the females to speak up in this thread, the only thing worth responding to is Anthile's question: They have lots of ear piercings and their hair never seems to quite cover them right.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Has this thread hugely gone off topic?

Yes, boringly so.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

Hahhahahahhaha. Fuck. This is dumb. I don't even wanna think about it anymore. Clearly men have different views about this topic than women. Yes, I am male... What is it like to be a girl? Wanting a compassionate long term relationship? I..... I can't understand or see sexual stuff from a female point of view.. It's impossible, so I have to ask girls and play games... Because this is the internet, I can say wutever I want. Cool.

What do girls want? I honestly font know. Usually really good at getting in peoples heads, until it comes to relationships. Why? It's like a dance. If males didn't have testosterone, would they be like girls? I am pumped full of testosterone. Why is this? This is proof that God exists. If nature alone created us wouldn't both male an female become sex addicts do we could reproduce more?