# Objectification of women



## Hiccups24-7 (Oct 17, 2009)

Mind Marauder said:


> Honesty with the self is the only way you can ever overcome problems.
> 
> On the topic of obesity ....



This is all very good and well, and to a degree I agree with it, but one thing that a lot of men fail to understand is how a lot of females are hormonally predisposed to weight gain, no amount of healthy eating or exercise will fix it, the body fat it stored away. A way the body prepares for child baring weither it happens or not. I don't expect you to accept it, just understand it, it's hormonal.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I think you may be the only fat-hater I've ever felt comfortable with. I hope this lasts, because it may provide opportunities for both of us to grow. Now, what I notice is that people who have suffered with certain evils, like gluttony, rage, etc, seem to be more likely to react negatively when others display signs of behaving similarly or in ways that may be related. For instance, I had a boyfriend once who had trouble controlling his temper, became violent and hateful when angry, and he would struggle so hard to eliminate all emotions with the assumption that not being able to control and kill off our emotions was the root of all evil. I'm very emotionally sensitive and can't help but express feelings. It was a disaster because he associated my crying with his own violent rages, considered both equally evil because he misidentified "having feelings" as the core of the problem. In your case, you probably think everyone else experiences things at least somewhat like you do, and that the impulse that caused your obesity is present in others with all of the same spiritual significance. Not so. The association makes sense, but is not accurate, just as it was understandable for my old boyfriend to imagine that others had the same struggles and responsibility to achieve mastery over their emotions in order to be spiritually mature people. I guess I should try to identify my major struggle to figure out what I'm projecting, now.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

Shannonline said:


> This is all very good and well, and to a degree I agree with it, but one thing that a lot of men fail to understand is how a lot of females are hormonally predisposed to weight gain, no amount of healthy eating or exercise will fix it, the body fat it stored away. A way the body prepares for child baring weither it happens or not. I don't expect you to accept it, just understand it, it's hormonal.


Yes but let's be very, VERY careful here. It's not JUST hormonal. It's diet, exercise, AND genetic/hormonal make-up. The body makes fat out of whatever you give to it. Give it good fat/lean protein/ and whole grains and you will be storing good fat/lean protein/ and whole grains. Give the body processed carbohydrates/bad fat/junk/etc. and don't work it off and you'll be storing that. Actually all human beings are predisposed hormonally for weight gain, it's a very basic and primitive survival mechanism. Men just happen to carry weight around differently than women because women do put on weight in areas for child birth. However, the excuse of gaining weight for child birth is only true prior to child birth when the levels of fat HAVE to increase. Just because women put on weight in areas for child birthing doesn't mean that they have a good excuse for it, unless of course they are pregnant or getting ready for pregnancy.


----------



## Hiccups24-7 (Oct 17, 2009)

Mind Marauder said:


> Yes but let's be very, VERY careful here....


Naaahhhhh ...I'm going to disagree with your male point of view and just not post in this thread anymore.


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

snail said:


> I think you may be the only fat-hater I've ever felt comfortable with. I hope this lasts, because it may provide opportunities for both of us to grow. Now, what I notice is that people who have suffered with certain evils, like gluttony, rage, etc, seem to be more likely to react negatively when others display signs of behaving similarly or in ways that may be related. For instance, I had a boyfriend once who had trouble controlling his temper, became violent and hateful when angry, and he would struggle so hard to eliminate all emotions with the assumption that not being able to control and kill off our emotions was the root of all evil. I'm very emotionally sensitive and can't help but express feelings. It was a disaster because he associated my crying with his own violent rages, considered both equally evil because he misidentified "having feelings" as the core of the problem. In your case, you probably think everyone else experiences things at least somewhat like you do, and that the impulse that caused your obesity is present in others with all of the same spiritual significance. Not so. The association makes sense, but is not accurate, just as it was understandable for my old boyfriend to imagine that others had the same struggles and responsibility to achieve mastery over their emotions in order to be spiritually mature people. I guess I should try to identify my major struggle to figure out what I'm projecting, now.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ah that's interesting you mention that because it's actually an idea I've been playing with. Such a notion totally shatters sympathy or empathy though because that means I can no longer feel those things towards people because I can no longer relate. While in meditation a few days ago I did follow that thought-path and came to a near-nihilistic conclusion. It creates a reality where everyone is literally incapable of feeling anything at all of what the other is feeling because we all have different approaches to what we all collectively identify as "emotion." Simply put: If your identification of discipline is not my identification of discipline then are we really talking about discipline? I doubt that makes sense.

My reason for being over weight (not obese because it wasn't hurting my health) was simply because I was 12 and didn't know anything other than eating a huge dessert after meals. When I break down know and consume everything it's because I've become afraid of something.

I've actually done what you're talking about though. Ironically enough the issue that comes to mind was emotional control. Back when I was first learning emotional calming routines, I would have to fight so hard to stop my anger. Then I found some other teachings that helped me deal with my anger in a better way while still maintaining a sense of calm. I did it with other stuff too though. I don't really do it much any more except for a few things (physical fitness being one of them I guess). I just hate having people be at what I perceive to be a "lower level" in anything when I've put forth the work to elevate myself.


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

Shannonline said:


> Naaahhhhh ...I'm going to disagree with your male point of view and just not post in this thread anymore.


Well I assure you it's not just a male point of view unless you consider what I've learned in my exercise science major at college all to be founded upon a male point of view. All that I said has been scientifically proven so I assure you it's not simply a "male point of view." Haha that's kinda funny actually because I'm one of the last people who would purposely support a male point of view simply because I'm male. This almost believes me to think you are just dodging the issue. It's your choice regardless but don't play it off as me being the one with the simple minded "male perspective." 

Haha that's pretty funny!


----------



## Munchies (Jun 22, 2009)

Mind Marauder said:


> So this is something I worry about a lot. Beauty is something I cannot live without. Feminine beauty however, makes my world go 'round. I just worry that I'm making women into objects and I don't know how to make myself not feel that way. I don't even really know if I am doing it in the first place. I almost feel as if I shouldn't be looking at women on the internet because on the internet you can't really know the person who's body you are looking at and therefore they are just that: a body. I don't know, maybe I'm blowing this outta proportion but it's just something I think about a lot because I admire women a lot. Also I don't want to be seen as the type of guy who makes women into objects. Help? Thoughts?


I dont think you can even be seen as a guy that makes women into objects, your putting the pussy on the pedestal ... its not man. People are just people. Go watch the 40 year old virgin and take some notes lol

Jokes (unless im right, then no, no jokes), its just a really in depth value system you have got going on, how you decide to act because of it is not in my control to give advice


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

Munchies said:


> I dont think you can even be seen as a guy that makes women into objects, your putting the pussy on the pedestal... its not man. People are just people. Go watch the 40 year old virgin and take some notes


Haha! I'm not prevent people from thinking that I objectify women! I could care less about that right now! I'm trying to determine if I'm doing it mentally. I would never blatantly objectify a woman physically or in real life, I'm just trying to determine if I'm thinking about it in the right way. Nor am I putting the "pussy on the pedestal" as you so eloquently put it. If anything I'm putting a woman's entire being on a pedestal. Besides, I come to this point have had sex several times already in life, so it's not like I'm some virgin who has some weird and totally unfounded ideas on sex.

By the way, I don't understand fully the part you added on at the end of your post prior to mine. I have a very, very, very serious mentality. My father who has been in the special forces, and seen death and destruction, tells me to be less serious.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Of course, we all want to have our efforts recognized, but having priorities that conflict with the priorities of others can lead to invalidation. For instance, one goal of mine is to become completely detached from negative physical associations so that I can accept any physical circumstances as long as the underlying spiritual circumstances are appropriate. I should be able to live in a cardboard box without losing my sense of inner comfort, for example. This has led me to embrace non-superficiality and non-materialism as a spiritual way of life, and to promote acceptance of all body-types, including my own, as value-neutral. If you see a certain body type as having greater spiritual value than another, your spiritual goals are directly opposed to mine. It means that I probably won't appreciate the sacrifices you make to achieve your goals, acknowledge the hardships you suffer for them, etc, and you won't appreciate the efforts that allow me to progress toward mine. If this occurs, we will both feel invalidated, and might not even know why. Each will see the other's hard-won progress as folly. Right?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

snail said:


> Of course, we all want to have our efforts recognized, but having priorities that conflict with the priorities of others can lead to invalidation. For instance, one goal of mine is to become completely detached from negative physical associations so that I can accept any physical circumstances as long as the underlying spiritual circumstances are appropriate. I should be able to live in a cardboard box without losing my sense of inner comfort, for example. This has led me to embrace non-superficiality and non-materialism as a spiritual way of life, and to promote acceptance of all body-types, including my own, as value-neutral. If you see a certain body type as having greater spiritual value than another, your spiritual goals are directly opposed to mine. It means that I probably won't appreciate the sacrifices you make to achieve your goals, acknowledge the hardships you suffer for them, etc, and you won't appreciate the efforts that allow me to progress toward mine. If this occurs, we will both feel invalidated, and might not even know why. Each will see the other's hard-won progress as folly. Right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You have no idea how eerie that is to have you say that. I've grappled with that exact same line of thinking. Because I am interested in meditation and spirituality I came to study Buddhism for a while (and still do) and I noticed how the Buddhist monks are not physically developed. I guess it's they are happy without having physically fit bodies. However, my spirituality is a practical spiritual. I feel it everywhere. Living life is spiritual on so many levels. Feeling my muscles contract is spiritual. Meditating is spiritual. I can do the things that Buddhist monks can do while also being spiritual while building my body. It's really just my focus. My discipline over my body translates into my discipline over my mind, and vice versa. Therefore, I can tolerate living with less. I actually aim to live a simplistic existence as well as long as I can exercise, learn, meditate, and have relationships with other humans.


----------



## Sidewalk Balloonatic (Mar 10, 2009)

Mind Marauder said:


> I just don't know if there is a clear line between objectification and admiration. Or if there is I need someone to point it out to me.


You shouldn't feel bad about finding people physically attractive, to what ever extent it is. It's when you invest their worth as a person entirely in their presentation (attractive or not) that you should feel like a jerk. From your other comments I don't think you have anything to worry about.


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

Sidewalk Balloonatic said:


> You shouldn't feel bad about finding people physically attractive, to what ever extent it is. It's when you invest their worth as a person entirely in their presentation (attractive or not) that you should feel like a jerk. From your other comments I don't think you have anything to worry about.


Alright, thanks for your input.


----------



## Ungweliante (Feb 26, 2009)

Azrael said:


> When I see a beautiful woman, it feels something like I'm seeing God.


Thanks, hun :wink:




Mind Marauder said:


> True, and I experience those things beyond them merely being items or objects. I guess I just hate how most men express their admiration (that doesn't even feel like the right word) and don't want to be viewed that way.





TurranMC said:


> I feel women are constantly objectified and disrespected. I cannot think of something off the top of my head that angers me more than to see that.


What's wrong with being admired for one's physical form? Rather, I would say that it can be a source of intense pleasure...to really put effort into looking good, and to see the lust in people's eyes, when looking at you. I don't see it as disrespecting women, but completely the opposite. The looks and the thoughts that I receive are statements of appreciation for all the effort I've put in it.




Mind Marauder said:


> From an early age I gravitated towards the idea of chivalry and defending a woman.


The chivalric, "defend the women" -mindset is something that can actually be quite offensive. Who the hell says that I need to be defended? Am I so weak that I cannot defend myself? That mentality labels women as categorically helpless and "in need of a strong man" for something so basic as personal safety.




Mind Marauder said:


> - Most women have this inner mother, the great ones really let that shine through.


The last thing I want is to be a mother to any companion I should have. A relationship should be between two equals, not some kind of hierarchical structure based on psycho-emotional breastfeeding.




Sidewalk Balloonatic said:


> You shouldn't feel bad about finding people physically attractive, to what ever extent it is. It's when you invest their worth as a person entirely in their presentation (attractive or not) that you should feel like a jerk.


Agreed, unless both parties are ok with it being completely about looks. Morals are always relative.


----------



## Marino (Jun 26, 2009)

Men are objectified just as frequently as women. Narrowing out women is sexist. 

As long as the objectification is consensual, there is nothing wrong with it. Models allow themselves to be objectified. That is their job. Many people, in fact, find power in being objectified.

This whole "poor victim" mentality is only disrespecting the objectified, as they do not want to be seen as victims - they want to be seen as autonomous individuals.


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

Ungweliante said:


> What's wrong with being admired for one's physical form? Rather, I would say that it can be a source of intense pleasure...to really put effort into looking good, and to see the lust in people's eyes, when looking at you. I don't see it as disrespecting women, but completely the opposite. The looks and the thoughts that I receive are statements of appreciation for all the effort I've put in it.


As many have said (and I have somewhat said myself) there is a line between admiring someone and making them into an object. I like being admired, who doesn't? But I would hate to be thought merely as a "gym rat" or "muscle head" simply because I have worked out a lot. Many men will simply say, "Look at that ass" or "Look at those tits" or something to that extent. Is that what you want men to refer to you as, nothing more than a chest and backside? I would think not.



Ungweliante said:


> The chivalric, "defend the women" -mindset is something that can actually be quite offensive. Who the hell says that I need to be defended? Am I so weak that I cannot defend myself? That mentality labels women as categorically helpless and "in need of a strong man" for something so basic as personal safety.


It all depends who you are though. Some women like to be defended. Some women like to be held in the knowledge that they have someone guarding their safety. So therefore you put it quite accurately: It CAN be offensive, but that doesn't mean it always is or is even meant to be offensive. You perceive it as being offensive. My "chivalry" extends to all those who need defense, not just women. I would defend those who see themselves as strong because even the strongest can fall. My chivalry is done without thinking about the possibility that a woman might be weaker. I see someone who needs my help, I help. I merely said I liked defending women. What's wrong with that? Maybe I don't feel men should be defended because I don't like them as much? That's not the case but it is an angle I could take.



Ungweliante said:


> The last thing I want is to be a mother to any companion I should have. A relationship should be between two equals, not some kind of hierarchical structure based on psycho-emotional breastfeeding.


Again, I never said that it had to be a mother in a relationship. I was merely referring to the fact that women and girls normally are good with children and those they love they will defend like they are their children. Also again, that is your own idea of what a relationship should be. Relationships are fluid, they aren't always 50/50. Somedays it's 99/1 or 25/75. There is no set-in-stone way to have a happy and successful relationship because many people have many different types of relationships and they are happy.



Ungweliante said:


> Agreed, unless both parties are ok with it being completely about looks. Morals are always relative.


Perhaps morals are relative but those who embrace morality are not people to be looked down upon. I'm not saying you think that way, but I just want to clear that up.


----------



## Ungweliante (Feb 26, 2009)

Mind Marauder said:


> Many men will simply say, "Look at that ass" or "Look at those tits" or something to that extent. Is that what you want men to refer to you as, nothing more than a chest and backside? I would think not.


No, I wouldn't have any problem with this. Rather, it'd make me happy :happy:




Mind Marauder said:


> It all depends who you are though. Some women like to be defended. Some women like to be held in the knowledge that they have someone guarding their safety. So therefore you put it quite accurately: It CAN be offensive, but that doesn't mean it always is or is even meant to be offensive. You perceive it as being offensive. My "chivalry" extends to all those who need defense, not just women. I would defend those who see themselves as strong because even the strongest can fall. My chivalry is done without thinking about the possibility that a woman might be weaker. I see someone who needs my help, I help. I merely said I liked defending women. What's wrong with that? Maybe I don't feel men should be defended because I don't like them as much? That's not the case but it is an angle I could take.


Well said. Genuinely wanting to help others is altruistic, and should be applauded. Helping only women is sexist, though...and can be offensive to both men and women.




Mind Marauder said:


> Again, I never said that it had to be a mother in a relationship. I was merely referring to the fact that women and girls normally are good with children and those they love they will defend like they are their children.


I wanted to comment on the issue, instead of accusing you. However, I can see how it might have seemed like that. My apologies.



Mind Marauder said:


> Also again, that is your own idea of what a relationship should be. Relationships are fluid, they aren't always 50/50. Somedays it's 99/1 or 25/75. There is no set-in-stone way to have a happy and successful relationship because many people have many different types of relationships and they are happy.


Agreed on relationships being fluid. However, I do honestly think that for a relationship to be happy on the long-term, there needs to be an equal feeling of satisfaction. What differs, of course, is how people perceive the good sides and bad sides of any given relationship.




Mind Marauder said:


> Perhaps morals are relative but those who embrace morality are not people to be looked down upon.


What do you mean by this? What kind of morality? Victorian? Satanic? Pagan norse? Jain?


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

Ungweliante said:


> No, I wouldn't have any problem with this. Rather, it'd make me happy :happy:


Wow. Uh, ok. Whatever floats your boat. I just don't really know many women like that. Or at least they don't admit it  Still however, I just don't feel comfortable saying that unless it's to a partner I'm extremely intimate with.



Ungweliante said:


> Well said. Genuinely wanting to help others is altruistic, and should be applauded. Helping only women is sexist, though...and can be offensive to both men and women.


Well I have to admit that I do get a good feeling out of helping people so it isn't 100% altruistic. However, I don't do it solely for the good feeling.



Ungweliante said:


> I wanted to comment on the issue, instead of accusing you. However, I can see how it might have seemed like that. My apologies.


Well I'm a naturally defensive person so it's not necessarily all blamable on you.



Ungweliante said:


> Agreed on relationships being fluid. However, I do honestly think that for a relationship to be happy on the long-term, there needs to be an equal feeling of satisfaction. What differs, of course, is how people perceive the good sides and bad sides of any given relationship.


Oh I agree. I wouldn't want a needy partner (I've broken up with people for that), but I do want to know that someone would be there to comfort me if something bad happened, even though I am a guy.



Ungweliante said:


> What do you mean by this? What kind of morality? Victorian? Satanic? Pagan norse? Jain?


Well, I was merely referring to any person's moral system. Not necessarily a certain philosophical or religious branch. I have my own system that is not connected to a specific religion or philosophy. It's just me-ism.


----------



## Fanille (Sep 3, 2009)

This is an interesting topic, as it is something I have struggled with as well.

As you can probably tell from my avatar, I do have a taste for physical beauty, which may make me come across as superficial. This "superficiality" has been something I've struggled with, but I've come to realize that trying to deny my weakness is really just lying to myself.

Imposing your standards of beauty on everyone is something that does concern me, though. Just because someone isn't, say, long-legged and blond like Blake Lively doesn't make them unworthy of love.

One other thing I've noticed, though, is that some people like to insult women that choose to be photographed in sexual poses/clothing, calling them "skankers" and other insulting names. In a way, insulting women *is* treating them like objects. And this form of objectification may be even worse, as some women actually do like being thought of as "sex objects," but no one likes being insulted.

Oh, and I don't really feel like getting too involved in the "anti-fat" discussion, but as someone who is a Registered Dietitian, personal trainer, and workout enthusiast I figured I'd address that. I have worked with morbidly obese patients and their situations aren't entirely their fault. But the responsibility does fall upon the individual to adopt healthful behaviors (eating well, exercising, etc.), along with the mental capability to know the right things to do. I don't hate fat people or consider them to be lazy, but I do think that it is important to take care of your body.


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

MannyP said:


> This is an interesting topic, as it is something I have struggled with as well.
> 
> As you can probably tell from my avatar, I do have a taste for physical beauty, which may make me come across as superficial. This "superficiality" has been something I've struggled with, but I've come to realize that trying to deny my weakness is really just lying to myself.
> 
> ...


A very good post. Thank you. Having everyone talk about this has really allowed me to see multiple angles to this. That's really what I wanted. As far as the fat issue goes, I guess my biggest problem is hearing people who complain about their weight yet they are the first people to grab that double chocolate cake in a HUGE portion and they also never work out. That's pretty much it.


----------



## Rourk (Feb 17, 2009)

Thank you .


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Harley said:


> I've come to rationalize the current sexualized pop culture like this:
> As far as I can tell nobody has forced these women to dress as they currently are, and make them audition for music videos/ TV shows/ movies that require them to flaunt nothing more than their physical attributes. If they wanted a career in the entertainment business with more depth, they would have known in advance that they would have to work hard at it, and that it takes more than just showing your cleavage, to be respected for your talent in that industry. They (should) know that by using mainly their bodies to sell their careers, that is what they will be known for. If they wanted to be respected for their talent they would have used it.


I don't think it is a decision that many women make consciously. 

Most cultures tie up a woman's looks with her value. The better looking, the more valuable she is. Male value is determined more by things like wealth, power, status, etc. At least those things can be earned...beauty is further out of your control, although I realize that there are many ways to enhance it.

Objectification, IMO, can occur when the physical aspect is seen as the most important or is the only aspect considered in an individual woman or women as a whole. Basically, the whole or main value of Woman is dependent on her appearance. This is a very common view in people (not just men, women buy into it also), even if unconscious or denied. That's why women use their bodies and looks to gain the success they desire.

Objectification also occurs when women are seen as receptacles for men to ejaculate into, which is a detached attitude that pornography promotes, but that may be another topic....

In a related thought, objectification also occurs when the person is dehumanized and seen as some means to an end. Companies can objectify their employees, and often do. They're seen as assets, not individual human beings.


----------



## Ungweliante (Feb 26, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> Objectification also occurs when women are seen as receptacles for men to ejaculate into, which is a detached attitude that pornography promotes, but that may be another topic....


Fortunately, there is an answer:


----------



## SeekJess (Nov 1, 2009)

I notice a lot more ugly girls than pretty ones.


----------



## Moon Pix (Sep 19, 2009)

Its just aesthetics and how that relates to biology. You are a sexual being wether you want to admit it or not and some things turn you on and some things don't. Its just a fact that you're not going to be able to get to know all of the people you find attractive on a personal level due to circumstances that are basically beyond your contro and its best just to accept it and not worry about it.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

The problem I find in it, is that human beings are not landscape and art- there is more to them than a physical body. You are assigning the meaning of desire to a shell. It confuses the heart and mind to do this.

Secondly, what are you finding attractive? Beauty standards are different through out culture, and time. Our media defines it for us. 

Very thin women were always chosen to be runway models because the clothing designers didn't have to alter their clothing to fit around the unique curves of a more womanly shape. Then, just like everything else in our culture, the female body became an object of fashion itself to be bought, and sold. In this case, because it was so closely related to fashion. Trends in body type changed just like trends in clothing. Sick, really, that the woman has been dehumanized and turned into a fashionable object by trend-mongers who don't realize/wouldn't give a f**k anyway what it does to the female mind, and body (as they cut and starve it into submission).

I'm not going to use the stupid cliché "sex sells" here, because that isn't what I think happened at all. First, this ridiculous image was created, then it was help up like a flash card with the label "sex" attached to it, then it was sold to everyone (women included). All you have to do it show the idiot american masses anything enough, and they will passively absorb it as gospel. All their lives, I think males are basically fed all this bulls*it about being "successful" basically just to get chicks. Chicks who look like models. Why models? Because those are the images in the media.

Disturbing to me, that if there's one thing that americans can all agree on, it's that a "hot chick" is a "hot chick." It's the one thing they can all believe in. They examine absolutely nothing, and that's dangerous, but failure to examine this, is literally killing women. Mentally, because they are forced to obsess over their weight, and physically, as they must go to extreme and unhealthy measures to look acceptable, spiritually, DOA. The image of what a woman is supposed to look like is distorted, then sold to us. From the time we are little girls playing with our mothers makeup, we are sent one very clear message: "If you aren't thin, and pretty, then no one will love you." Only 8 percent of women naturally have the very thin lanky model body.. the rest will struggle all of their lives and never attain it. And it isn't that they all worship the anorexic goddess, for most of them, it's simply that they ..realize everyone else does. They just want to be loved, but are certain that if they don't conform to certain standards, they are unlovable. There's no more damned creature in this society than.. "the fat chick."

People won't realize what they are supporting, and banish it, because the ugly thing has grown roots in the very things that make us human. "Love" is the anorexic starlet wearing the little black dress and the absurdly expensive diamond earrings her lover bought for her. Sex, many times apart from love, is the swimsuit model with her orange tan and water balloon breasts that defy the laws of physics. All image, of course, because that is the easiest of our senses to appeal to.

So many things make me feel completely alienated from people, but nothing like this. I feel it all day. Self-appointed beauty pageant judges rating me just like they do everything female, on a scale of one to ten. It's the favorite american male past-time. "Look at that one over there.. nice ass, too bad about the face, nice face, too bad about the bod." They play visual cut and paste with women's body parts. There are much more subtle ways in which they communicate this toxic disease of mind as well. Walk by a group of guys, and you may notice one of them simply pointing out to the other who the "hot chick" in the crowd is - typical. The message is clear, again.. if you aren't the "hot chick" then you are invisible to the opposite sex.

Time to go buy that bottle of ephedra, perhaps? Spend all of our money and effort on either trying to look like a model, or owning things that will attract them. And of course thats the point. Easy to take our money when they are promising to sell the only cure for loneliness. Infuriating that they contributed to the market themselves making us fear and hate our own, and each others bodies for being natural.

These days, the jerks who sell diet pills realize that they have a new market: average, healthy women who want to look like models. What the fuck ever happened to just being healthy? Also, now, actual women aren't even needed to model. They can create a face, and body digitally, rather than use an "imperfect" female, who even after all her cosmetic surgery efforts, is still going to need hours of hair and makeup before a shoot (including body makeup as they can airbrush on a tan to hide skin "imperfections."

I'm not saying that american culture isn't tough on guys as well. That's another Pandora's box of ridiculous rules and expectations. I used to spend so much time trying to make people realize that they are just damaging each other with these seemingly harmless ideals. Later, I realized that the only thing they truly give a f**k about, most of them, is having their entertainment taken away. If they can't live to check out a "nice set of ripped abs," well then life just isn't fun anymore, therefore not worth living. I'm just programmed differently. I prefer to live the examined life. Nothing made me that way that I can think of.. I just always.. was. 



So, perhaps examine why you are attracted to what you are attracted to, and the effects shallow attractions have.


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

Promethea said:


> The problem I find in it, is that human beings are not landscape and art- there is more to them than a physical body. You are assigning the meaning of desire to a shell. It confuses the heart and mind to do this.
> 
> Secondly, what are you finding attractive? Beauty standards are different through out culture, and time. Our media defines it for us.
> 
> ...


An excellent post. Right now though I've reached a point where looks no longer mean much to me at all. If I am shown two pictures of women and one is obese and one is a super model and someone asks me: "Who is more physically beautiful?" I will tell them the super model. The answer would be based upon the question. "Physically beautiful." Now emotionally beautiful? Intellectually beautiful? Who knows? You can't unless you have some other determinate that will, most likely, take time to observe. But physical beauty has been proven to be scientifically determinable based upon angles of the body. It has become objective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physical_attractiveness)

The sexiness of facial symmetry across cultures and species Anthropology.net


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Mind Marauder said:


> All that I said has been scientifically proven so I assure you it's not simply a "male point of view."


Ok, science.. so basically we have gravity, and shallow attractions as two things that are never not correct?

I call bullsh*t- and I will tell you why. It's all theory, and a lot of it is contradictory. As a sociology major, I say through many documentaries on attraction and the pseudo-scientific why behind them all- and then, there were other theories that contradicted those too. Theory. Theory. Theory. Not scientific fact.

Actually if you want to believe it, you can pretty much look only for evidence that supports it, and prove it that way- but is it correct? Maybe not.. and how deeply are they examining it.. 

Oh, and how about all the EXCEPTIONS to the 'rules?'



Mind Marauder said:


> But physical beauty has been proven to be scientifically determinable based upon angles of the body. It has become objective.


Not accurate. You are stating theory as fact, when it is only theory, and there are exceptions to it all. Null and void.


----------



## Mind Marauder (Nov 12, 2009)

True, very true. But the existence of a rule implies exceptions. That's the naturally order.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Mind Marauder said:


> True, very true. But the existence of a rule implies exceptions. That's the naturally order.


Problem is, it's not even actually a rule to begin with. It is a simple theory, and not a very well thought out one at that.

It is measuring based on what a large percentage of people think, but it can't answer why they think it, at all. That wouldn't be possible because it would have to examine human nature- real human nature. But as we exist today, we have grown from our nature into something that is less than our pure nature. What I mean is that there are many factors which determine things that we can't take apart from our nature in order to understand that very core nature.

Perhaps the majority of people have shallow physical attractions because they are conditioned to. 

You can't extract only our true nature and test it. Other things are interfering. 

Also- look at other cultures. In Haiti the men prefer larger women with more weight sitting on their thighs and hips. It is similar in some parts of Mexico. Also, look at how beauty standards have changed through out time. 

Now, you are trying to say that science has proven that we are all attracted to something in particular- then why do people repeatedly go against that alleged scientific fact?

Cause it ain't science, or fact.

Seems the only thing we can truly make a claim for is that it is in our nature to be sexual creatures, sure- but what determines what we are sexually attracted to is way too complicated to even begin to explain away as something so short-sighted. 

Pic related- it's my submission for beauty standards being different through out time.

I will give you cultural- but scientific; never.










:laughing:


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

^ Promethea, I see the general idea in your post and over all it makes some good points.... However, most men don't find thin fashion models attractive, if you ask them. I would say that breast implants are a better example of how skewed beauty ideals are. The women presented to men as ideal are slender with disproportionately large fake breasts, hair extensions, and fake tans (at the least).

I also take offense at the idea that curves are "more womanly". XX chromosome and a vagina make you a woman, not big boobs and wide hips. A very thin, lanky woman is not less of a woman. I would argue that's something we've been fed also: that woman should look ONE way, and there is ONE beauty ideal that everyone should desire. Sayings like "real women have curves" are just as damaging as images of very thin women in magazines.


----------



## Pac-Man (Nov 21, 2009)

Femme said:


> Would you feel guilty admiring a beautiful work of art? How about a flower or ocean view?
> 
> I highly doubt you would. The earth is open for admiration and appreciation.


This is misconstrued analogy to contemporary conceptions that omits factoring in the discrepancies between the disparate sentiments ascribed to these two. Your simplification of an intricate premises illustrates the processing of a prosaic mind.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> ^ Promethea, I see the general idea in your post and over all it makes some good points.... However, most men don't find thin fashion models attractive, if you ask them. I would say that breast implants are a better example of how skewed beauty ideals are. The women presented to men as ideal are slender with disproportionately large fake breasts, hair extensions, and fake tans (at the least).
> 
> I also take offense at the idea that curves are "more womanly". XX chromosome and a vagina make you a woman, not big boobs and wide hips. A very thin, lanky woman is not less of a woman. I would argue that's something we've been fed also: that woman should look ONE way, and there is ONE beauty ideal that everyone should desire. Sayings like "real women have curves" are just as damaging as images of very thin women in magazines.


No no. My points, though buried in a few tl;dr posts, where that different people are attracted to different things- and that only a very small percentage of women are of the rectangle, and ectomorph body types- like models. So far as what the majority- not all- people seem to be attracted to, it certainly does seem to be in line with what is sold to us by the media, and it doesn't deviate far from that body type. What you described as the more accurate ideal is only five lbs and an orange tan away from the average model. Actually, when I look at the airbrushed photos of celebrities, they all pretty much look that way to me.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Promethea said:


> The problem I find in it, is that human beings are not landscape and art- there is more to them than a physical body. You are assigning the meaning of desire to a shell. It confuses the heart and mind to do this.
> 
> Secondly, what are you finding attractive? Beauty standards are different through out culture, and time. Our media defines it for us.
> 
> ...


I'm not into girls, or I'd be madly in love with you. This is one of the most amazing things I've ever read from any member here. :blushed:


----------



## Moon Pix (Sep 19, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Problem is, it's not even actually a rule to begin with. It is a simple theory, and not a very well thought out one at that.
> 
> It is measuring based on what a large percentage of people think, but it can't answer why they think it, at all. That wouldn't be possible because it would have to examine human nature- real human nature. But as we exist today, we have grown from our nature into something that is less than our pure nature. What I mean is that there are many factors which determine things that we can't take apart from our nature in order to understand that very core nature.
> 
> ...


Its seems to me that what you're really raging against is a type of cultural indoctrination. The thing I don't understand is why you seem to consider 'alternative beauty standards' from different societies to be any less a product of cultural indoctrination. Part of the culture of the Kayan tribes in Burma is that women from the age of 5 are made to wear rings around their necks. Gradually this causes elongation of the neck (just put kayan into Google images). According to the Kayan article on Wikpedia, "Kayan women, when asked, acknowledge these ideas, but often say that their purpose for wearing the rings is cultural identity (one associated with beauty)."

Is this really any less damaging to the women involved than the American ideal of female beauty? Is it any less a form of cultural indoctrination?. All cultures develop certain standards and ideas. This is what differentiates them from each other. My opinion is that any ideal image is dangerous because they are romantic as opposed to realist. When one of these sickos in Afghanistan blow themselves up on a bus its because of an ideal, a romanticised notion of sacrifice and murder. There's not a lot of difference here. An ideal is only an ideal if most of the population don't conform to it.This ideal of beauty doesnt relate to the experience of most people.

Maybe Im just being optimistic but I also think that you are greatly underestimating your fellow man and grossly overestimating the power of the media in what you say. I believe a quick look at the world will reveal to you that most people do not in fact need their partner to be a 10. By saying that I know that I am using the language of objectification by how can one not make the case for or against a worldview without ever using its own lexicon?

I think in general it goes like this - the majority of people see the One Tree Hill/Dawson's Creek world that you are talking about, they see the toned abs, the pert breasts, the tanned skin and perfectly white teeth. They find it attractive of course and maybe some people aspire to it but they don't actually believe in it, they know that it is a fantasy, that it is an unachieveable ideal and that most people don't look like that and they accept it. They don't say "unless I can go out with a girl that looks like Zooey Deschanel Ill spend the rest of my life on my own." I believe this because if you ask the majority of people you get the same answer, that personality is number one and that looks are important but only to the degree that the person is not 'ugly' by their own definitions of what that word means. Maybe some people put a great emphasis on this than others and have 'higher standards' but I really don't believe that it is a significant portion of the population.

In general I don't believe in 'the herd'. Once again maybe I am just being optimistic and having too much faith in my fellow humans to be rational about it but I do not accept the critque of mass society, the idea that the masses are somehow an unthinking collective that buy into any bullshit they are sold. In my opinion, 'the herd' is just an idea that developed during the counterculture of the 1960s among certain circles of left leaning liberals (anarchists, commies, feminists and every student that ever had a poster of Che Guevara on their wall) in order to feel better about themselves, that they are somehow more enlightened and deeper than the great unwashed, that their safe middle class rebellion was somehow genuinely a threat to the system.

This view is now widespread in society. Its everywhere whether its in books like _No Logo_ and movies like _Fight Club_. It is probably the only thing inherited from the hippie counterculture that is still going strong and thats because its very attractive. The fact that the criticism of consumerism is so widespread is evidence that certain people enjoy getting a kick out of feeling more enlightened than the next person. I believe that in modern society this is the true vanity, the true arrogance. The true narcisist in modern society is not Dorian Gray. It isnt the art/fashion loving dandy. It is the enlightened rebel that believes only he and a few select others can see through the bullshit that most people buy into hook line and sinker.

Lastly I just want to give my opinions on your comments about our "pure nature." IMO (and it is only my opinion), it would seem that the very prescence of culture no matter how ethnic, organic, naturalistic or primitive it is essentially moves us away from our "pure nature." This is because culture is a purely artifical construction. There is no more real reason for us to be sitting in front of computers now talking about this than there is for some tribe in the rainforest to ritually slaughter animals as an offering to the gods for more rain. They are just the products and processes of different beliefs that develop into needs and become entrenched into the fabric of the culture over a certain period of time. The fact that the culture of the tribe is influenced by the natural world doesnt actually make it any "purer" or any closer to our true nature. It only makes it less damaging to the enviroment which may make it more moral but not any purer. The pure nature of humanity as far as I can see it has nothing to do with morality. It is simply to harness ones emotional, psychic, spiritual and physical energy and do what thou wilt with it.

Sorry about the long post everybody but I read Promethea's various posts on this subject and found them to be very thought provoking. I believe that in return, posts like Promethea's only deserve responses that are the product of lengthy deliberation and meditation.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Moon Pix said:


> Its seems to me that what you're really raging against is a type of cultural indoctrination. The thing I don't understand is why you seem to consider 'alternative beauty standards' from different societies to be any less a product of cultural indoctrination. Part of the culture of the Kayan tribes in Burma is that women from the age of 5 are made to wear rings around their necks. Gradually this causes deformity of the neck (just put kayan into Google images). According to the Kayan article on Wikpedia, "Kayan women, when asked, acknowledge these ideas, but often say that their purpose for wearing the rings is cultural identity (one associated with beauty)."
> 
> Is this really any less damaging to the women involved than the American ideal of female beauty? Is it any less a form of cultural indoctrination?. All cultures develop certain standards and ideas. This is what differentiates them from each other. My opinion is that any ideal image is dangerous because they are romantic as opposed to realist. When one of these sickos in Afghanistan blow themselves up on a bus its because of an ideal, a romanticised notion of sacrifice and murder. There's not a lot of difference here. An ideal is only an ideal if most of the population don't conform to it.This ideal of beauty doesnt relate to the experience of most people.


Firstly, I wasn't "raging" against anything. I hadn't even used any language that would make my tone appear that way. I wonder why it was perceived that way. 

In the last couple of posts in this thread, I was just pointing out that science doesn't prove that one type, or a few particular types are inherently more attractive.

The topic at hand, earlier in this thread was- as I understand it- focused on american cultural standards. I am not saying that other cultures have perfect standards- or anything for that matter, but I am replying to posts here, not trying to write an encyclopedia of world beauty standards. 

I think part of my point was missed here, because I wasn't saying that the other cultures have it right- just that they are all different. Thus, there is again, no proof that science would dictate one type being better.

So, to break it down: beauty standards- different all over, not agreeing with any of them. Culture- not science that determines them.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

As long as they keep make me my sandwiches.

*taps foot impatiently.*


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Promethea said:


> No no. My points, though buried in a few tl;dr posts, where that different people are attracted to different things- and that only a very small percentage of women are of the rectangle, and ectomorph body types- like models. So far as what the majority- not all- people seem to be attracted to, it certainly does seem to be in line with what is sold to us by the media, and it doesn't deviate far from that body type. What you described as the more accurate ideal is only five lbs and an orange tan away from the average model. Actually, when I look at the airbrushed photos of celebrities, they all pretty much look that way to me.


There is a venom in your post towards thin women which is unnecessary. Maybe because you have never been thin and heard people make degrading comments like "boyish", "rail", "beanpole", "you need to eat more", "must be anorexic", "don't you know that men prefer women with meat on their bones?", etc that you do not see the damage. These phrases are often reported by thin women as comments they receive that are hurtful. Thin women are not "rectangles" either (another degrading comment, and definitely objectifying). Thin is only okay if you're thin in the "right" places and have fat in the "right" places, otherwise, it's attacked as much as being fat, and much more than being merely chubby. Outside of the fashion world (which does not represent the average opinion at all) and in real life, chubby is always better than very thin, and "skinny" is rarely a compliment.

Every single time I start a new job, meet a new social circle, etc. I can count on a comment about my weight within the first week from someone. Be it nicknames like "skinny minny", "how do you stay so thin?" asked suspiciously, comments on what I am eating (too much, too little, too healthy, too unhealthy), etc. I'm not even bony or underweight at all. I am healthy and slender, but "normal" is overweight.

So outside of the media, that does shove a certain image down people's throats, there's an entirely different viewpoint, one that is equally skewed, IMO. The bottom line is that the standards are impossible, and _you cannot win_ if you're a woman, which is what makes most women sensitive to the topic and which increases the feeling of being objectified.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> There is a venom in your post towards thin women which is unnecessary. Maybe because you have never been thin and heard people make degrading comments like "boyish", "rail", "beanpole", "you need to eat more", "must be anorexic", "don't you know that men prefer women with meat on their bones?", etc that you do not see the damage. These phrases are often reported by thin women as comments they receive that are hurtful. Thin women are not "rectangles" either (another degrading comment, and definitely objectifying). Thin is only okay if you're thin in the "right" places and have fat in the "right" places, otherwise, it's attacked as much as being fat, and much more than being merely chubby. Outside of the fashion world (which does not represent the average opinion at all) and in real life, chubby is always better than very thin, and "skinny" is rarely a compliment.
> 
> Every single time I start a new job, meet a new social circle, etc. I can count on a comment about my weight within the first week from someone. Be it nicknames like "skinny minny", "how do you stay so thin?" asked suspiciously, comments on what I am eating (too much, too little, too healthy, too unhealthy), etc. I'm not even bony or underweight at all. I am healthy and slender, but "normal" is overweight.
> 
> So outside of the media, that does shove a certain image down people's throats, there's an entirely different viewpoint, one that is equally skewed, IMO. The bottom line is that the standards are impossible, and _you cannot win_ if you're a woman, which is what makes most women sensitive to the topic and which increases the feeling of being objectified.


I'm 6 foot and 132 pounds. I know what you mean.

But iunno if I agree with it or not....I just....can't get Paris Hilton out of my head when I was reading about your take on impressions from the media regarding size....

Bitch looks like she eats tapeworms more than burgers.


----------



## Moon Pix (Sep 19, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Firstly, I wasn't "raging" against anything. I hadn't even used any language that would make my tone appear that way. I wonder why it was perceived that way.


To me it seemed that you were getting pretty steamed up about the whole thing and it to me it came across as "oh if only the fucking media would leave us girls alone."


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> I'm 6 foot and 132 pounds. I know what you mean.
> 
> But iunno if I agree with it or not....I just....can't get Paris Hilton out of my head when I was reading about your take on impressions from the media regarding size....
> 
> Bitch looks like she eats tapeworms more than burgers.


Paris Hilton is not held up as ideal (she is mocked more than celebrated), and that comment about what she eats is exactly what I mean.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> There is a venom in your post towards thin women which is unnecessary. Maybe because you have never been thin and heard people make degrading comments like "boyish", "rail", "beanpole", "you need to eat more", "must be anorexic", "don't you know that men prefer women with meat on their bones?", etc that you do not see the damage. These phrases are often reported by thin women as comments they receive that are hurtful. Thin women are not "rectangles" either (another degrading comment, and definitely objectifying). Thin is only okay if you're thin in the "right" places and have fat in the "right" places, otherwise, it's attacked as much as being fat, and much more than being merely chubby. Outside of the fashion world (which does not represent the average opinion at all) and in real life, chubby is always better than very thin, and "skinny" is rarely a compliment.
> 
> Every single time I start a new job, meet a new social circle, etc. I can count on a comment about my weight within the first week from someone. Be it nicknames like "skinny minny", "how do you stay so thin?" asked suspiciously, comments on what I am eating (too much, too little, too healthy, too unhealthy), etc. I'm not even bony or underweight at all. I am healthy and slender, but "normal" is overweight.
> 
> So outside of the media, that does shove a certain image down people's throats, there's an entirely different viewpoint, one that is equally skewed, IMO. The bottom line is that the standards are impossible, and _you cannot win_ if you're a woman, which is what makes most women sensitive to the topic and which increases the feeling of being objectified.


Lol. The only venom here- is obviously from you, and this is the type of drama I have hoped to avoid. You also keep missing my point. You are making this into something very personal, whereas I was just making observations of cultural standards. 

"_I am healthy and slender, but "normal" is overweight._"

No. My point has been all along that there are several body types, and that only a few are recognized as acceptable in the media. I believe I also said somewhere that a person should work on being healthy as what they are- not trying to fit into one of the only acceptable images. "Normal" is what is "normal" for the _*individual.*_

It's like you think that I think all women need to look like beyonce.. no. I have said anything BUT- 'all women need to look' a certain way. Quite the opposite.

"_Maybe because you have never been thin and heard people make degrading comments._"

And for the record- since you want to make it personal, I was picked at and called anorexic quite a bit when I was younger, and it was irritating, sure- but I really don't see what it has to do with this, and why you are trying to make it personal, when all I am doing is pointing out what I see in our culture. 

So far as the 'rectangle' body type- there are several more. Apple, hourglass, inverted triangle, pear.. blah.. blah.. Anyway, those aren't offensive anymore than mesomorph, ectomorph, or endomorph- they all have to do with how your frame is shaped, and how easily you gain/lose weight/muscle. I wasn't saying that one is better than the other, just using one as an example because it is something that I see in the media a lot. Again, observation- not judgment on their bodies. Observation.

:laughing:


----------



## Femme (Jul 12, 2009)

EarlGray said:


> This is misconstrued analogy to contemporary conceptions that omits factoring in the discrepancies between the disparate sentiments ascribed to these two. Your simplification of an intricate premises illustrates the processing of a prosaic mind.


Even with the use of a dictionary, the only thing I've gathered is that you believe I'm prosaic. As to why, exactly, you believe this, I'm rather clueless.

Call me obtuse.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Lol. The only venom here- is obviously from you, and this is the type of drama I have hoped to avoid. You also keep missing my point. You are making this into something very personal, whereas I was just making observations of cultural standards.
> 
> "_I am healthy and slender, but "normal" is overweight._"
> 
> ...


:laughing::laughing::laughing:

Go back and read your posts. They are filled with venom. Your tone has changed here. I don't need to argue it because your posts are evidence enough.

My point is that when people like you attack the thin standard, you are inadvertently attacking thin women. Your posts have a very "us vs. them" vibe...the regular woman vs. the alien ideal. It villifies thin women and promotes a different ideal that's just as damaging. The problem that we can agree on is one narrow standard for everyone.

I won't get into a discussion on what is "normal", but there are definitely valid arguments that certain extremes are not healthy; and speaking in general terms, there's nothing wrong to acknowledge that overweight has become "normal". I think that's a good point because it further shows that the ideal and the norm have a huge gap, and that neither tends to accept a variety or promote health.

For the record, I think all of those terms are objectifying: apple, ruler, pear etc. Men's bodies are rarely referred to in terms like this, and I think that says a lot.


----------



## Moon Pix (Sep 19, 2009)

Its kind of funny really because originally this was just about one guy asking wether he should feel bad about being turned on by physically attractive women even though he doesnt know them.:tongue:

For the record, no you shouldnt. Take in what your eyes will and enjoy yourself. You will most likely meet a wonderful woman and have a nice life... and all of this even with Zooey Deschanel being unavailable.:laughing:


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> :laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> Go back and read your posts. They are filled with venom. Your tone has changed here. I don't need to argue it because your posts are evidence enough.
> 
> ...



Wrong again. Not attacking women- just saying that society having a very narrow standard is ridiculous. 

"overweight has become "normal"."

Nope, actually the perceptions of 'average' has gotten even thinner in the past decade.

"For the record, I think all of those terms are objectifying: apple, ruler, pear etc. Men's bodies are rarely referred to in terms like this, and I think that says a lot."

Men's bodies don't have as many different shapes as womens, but yes, they are refereed to as the different shapes, and most men strive to be mesomorphs.

So far as my tone changing, I get that projection a lot from people who are more emotional, and don't understand that as a T- my tone really typically isn't.


----------



## Moon Pix (Sep 19, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> For the record, I think all of those terms are objectifying: apple, ruler, pear etc. Men's bodies are rarely referred to in terms like this, and I think that says a lot.


We get reffered to as buff and hunky... or not in my case.:laughing:


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> Paris Hilton is not held up as ideal (she is mocked more than celebrated), and that comment about what she eats is exactly what I mean.


Seriously?

It's pretty hard to find someone that doesn't wanna fuck Paris Hilton....I even know ladies who've said they'd go gay >.<

Hell, even I'D fuck Paris Hilton....

Especially with a burger involved >.<






I mean shit, she's so skinny her RIBS looked more succulent than the burger >.<

Paris Hilton is all over press, and people watch her all over the world. And it's not out of mockery, the only thing people mock is her stupidity. If she wasn't considered "Hott as fuck." you really think she'd have been chosen by a CORPORATION to represent a hot fucking sandwich? Cuz I don't >.<

I just don't see anything wrong with calling a kettle black. Paris Hilton looks like she munches tapeworms over burgers, and I look like I've been eating nothing but popcorn for the past decade. 

The only problem with statements like this is how they are received by others, which should definitely be taken into consideration.

The only difference between Paris Hilton, me, and you. Is me and Paris don't really give a shit if people call us tapeworm eaters. Hell, I'd bet she'd be just as likely to get up after a meal exclaiming "Damn, I need to purge." just as much as I'd be.

Like most things, all of this boils down to nothing but confidence. 

And suggesting that the world should assume that everyone is insecure and because of such people should avoid calling kettles black....does nothing for me but kinda make me sad for humanity :-\


----------



## TurranMC (Sep 15, 2009)

I don't know if you were being sarcastic but I wouldn't fuck Paris Hilton. There's absolutely nothing I like about her. She's ugly inside and out.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

TurranMC said:


> I don't know if you were being sarcastic but I wouldn't fuck Paris Hilton. There is absolutely nothing I like about her. She's ugly inside and out.


It's often difficult for me to know when hes being silly, or sarcastic. Usually I just shrug and keep reading. Lol.

:tongue:


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Wrong again. Not attacking women- just saying that society having a very narrow standard is ridiculous.


Whatever your motive, your phrasing and angle came off as attacking. That's why I said "inadvertently attacks". I don't disbelieve that you had bad motive, but I am pointing out how your expression comes off.



> "overweight has become "normal"."
> 
> Nope, actually the perceptions of 'average' has gotten even thinner in the past decade.


Wrong. There's tons of evidence that support people in western countries have gotten and are getting fatter. The standard has gotten thinner, but the norm has gotten fatter, which is why I said the gap has widened between the two.



> "For the record, I think all of those terms are objectifying: apple, ruler, pear etc. Men's bodies are rarely referred to in terms like this, and I think that says a lot."
> 
> Men's bodies don't have as many different shapes as womens, but yes, they are refereed to as the different shapes, and most men strive to be mesomorphs.


I disagree. Men's bodies have a lot of different shapes, and I maintain that their physiques are not analyzed to the degree that women's bodies are. A term like "mesomorph" is very different from a term like "apple" in its connotations. I don't think I need to spell it out.



> So far as my tone changing, I get that projection a lot from people who are more emotional, and don't understand that as a T- my tone really typically isn't.


That's a tired excuse. If there's no tone change, then why do people often note it? 

A person cannot constantly blame other people for the way he/she comes off. When many are perceiving a person the same way, then maybe it's time for that person to stop and think about how he/she is acting.

Who says I am more emotional that you anyway? Because I have INFP under my avatar?
I don't tend to post emotionally. If you perceive me that way, then maybe you are projecting?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> Whatever your motive, your phrasing and angle came off as attacking. That's why I said "inadvertently attacks". I don't disbelieve that you had bad motive, but I am pointing out how your expression comes off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol. You are hellbent on keeping on with the digs, and there is really no more dialogue between us that will contribute to the actual point of this thread, so I'm leaving it at this to avoid anymore unnecessary drama. I said all I needed to say about the topic, and I'm sorry you took some of it personal. For the last time- it wasn't mean that way. Now, I'm dropping this particular thing with you, because since you made it personal, this isn't going to help maintain the integrity of the topic at hand.

Peace.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Hahaha.

I suck at communicating, huh? XD My bad.

Ask, and I will always clarify.

All I meant to convey is that Paris Hilton is DEFINITELY AN ADEQUATE SYMBOL OF FEMININE SEXUALITY. Without a doubt. (In all honesty, I doubt I'd fuck her. I'd fuck Britney before her. But I for SURE saw that Paris Hilton sex tape. I mean come on....)

And I did it because all these statements regarding weight and bullshit, just don't apply to her at all with her scrawny tapeworm eating ass.

The point was, that it's incredibly unlikely that sex symbol Paris Hilton gives two shits about how thin she is (like myself), and that the difference between the other perspective doesn't imply sensitivity to judgement, but insecurity.

Black kettle is to Paris Hilton as calling-it-black is to being-a-tapeworm-eater.

Neither Paris Hilton or the kettle freak out when the obvious is stated about them, because they're comfortable with it.

I just think it'd be more beneficial and productive discussing WHY people are so sensitive if someone calls them a tapeworm eater, as opposed to claiming that people should be more weary of calling the kettle black, to accommodate their insecurities.


----------



## Moon Pix (Sep 19, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> Neither Paris Hilton or the kettle freak out when the obvious is stated about them, because they're comfortable with it.


I would fucking love to see a kettle freak out.

"oh darling you should have seen it... there was tea everywhere!:laughing:"


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Moon Pix said:


> I would fucking love to see a kettle freak out.
> 
> "oh darling you should have seen it... there was tea everywhere!:laughing:"


"Did THAT muthafucka just call me BLACK!??! Oh, hell naw!!!!"


----------



## Pac-Man (Nov 21, 2009)

Femme said:


> Even with the use of a dictionary, the only thing I've gathered is that you believe I'm prosaic. As to why, exactly, you believe this, I'm rather clueless.
> 
> Call me obtuse.


*Facepalm*


----------



## Femme (Jul 12, 2009)

EarlGray said:


> *Facepalm*


You suck, Pikachu.


----------



## Pac-Man (Nov 21, 2009)

Femme said:


> You suck, Pikachu.


OMG! You heard it? =D


----------



## Femme (Jul 12, 2009)

EarlGray said:


> OMG! You heard it? =D


I am confuzzled.


----------



## Female INFJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Mind Marauder said:


> So this is something I worry about a lot. Beauty is something I cannot live without. Feminine beauty however, makes my world go 'round. I just worry that I'm making women into objects and I don't know how to make myself not feel that way. I don't even really know if I am doing it in the first place. I almost feel as if I shouldn't be looking at women on the internet because on the internet you can't really know the person who's body you are looking at and therefore they are just that: a body. I don't know, maybe I'm blowing this outta proportion but it's just something I think about a lot because I admire women a lot. Also I don't want to be seen as the type of guy who makes women into objects. Help? Thoughts?


Hey* Mind Marauder* - I am curious to revive this thread of yours...I was wondering your age, and whether you've had a few relationships with women, I do want to respond appropriately...Also I have noted you are a Type 5 person, so I would like to get an understanding of this topic in more detail from you...

I tried to PM you but there is not that option, are you still here on PerC? If i don't hear from you, I'll just post away...I just really wanted to respond clearly to your first post here, i notice the thread has become, in the later posts, into some sort of debate...but I want to stick to the essence of beauty, and how a man feels about it...and in this case, YOU, and your thoughts, as it is your thread...


----------

