3 ms·

Let me understand, anything sex-related which isn't expressed in scientific or moral terms has to burn in hell, right? Mainly because it is "objectifying" and i

Let me understand, anything sex-related which isn't expressed in scientific or moral terms has to burn in hell, right? Mainly because it is "objectifying" and insulting. Sometimes having a good laugh is a lot smarter than creating a political situation out of nothing. I think this is the case.

chris_wot 13y ago
"Titstare" was designed to allow men stare at women's breasts. In other words, for one reason only: objectification of women and their body parts. If you can't see that here, I'm not sure what else to say to you!
- laichzeit0 13y ago
  What if, let's just make this hypothetical for a second, woman want men to stare at their breasts? Would you still have an issue?
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Where you are going with this is so ridiculous I won't be responding, other than with this response!
    - laichzeit0 13y ago
      It's not ridiculous at all. It's one of the fundamental assumptions you're making in all your arguments but unwilling to put down as an axiom.
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        Fine, I'll respond then. If some women don't find it offensive, all I need to find are women who did find it offensive, belittling, discouraging or isolating. Or some men who believed it was offensive, belittling, discouraging or isolating to women. Like myself and a bunch of others.
        laichzeit0 13y ago
        Yes and what will you conclude from that? Some find it offensive, some do not. It's by no means universal and some kind of "necessary truth".
        chris_wot 13y ago
        Many do find it offensive. As many find the word "nigger" racist, but some do not doesn't disprove that it is a racist term. So it is here.
        WayneDB 13y ago
        A word can't be racist. A word can be used by racists, but the word itself - no. There is a whole spectrum out there. The word "nigger" is a term of endearment for many.
  - sp332 13y ago
    This hypothetical is not useful. You don't have to take it as an arbitrary "axiom" for the argument; you could empirically measure some of the women who are offended by this talk.
    - laichzeit0 13y ago
      The reason why it's useful is because in your case (empirically measure) it becomes at best "relative". There may be cultures / societies where woman desire men to stare at their breasts. In this case his argument would mean naught.
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        Was the app presented in such a culture? Where are you going with this?
      - sp332 13y ago
        Maybe? My point is, empirically, we are not in that culture! Edit: oh wait... You're saying that maybe the guys in the presentation are not reducing women to their physical bits, but actually treating them as human beings who like being treated this way? If so there is a simple way to disprove it: The women can't say "no". Since the women are not given any agency, they are not being treated as human beings but as mere objects with no control over how their bodies are used.
  - pstack 13y ago
    I think we would be better served if we stopped seeing everything as sexist or not sexist and determining that if a thing is not, then everyone should shut up and leave it alone. Instead, let's dispense with the labels or making anyone out to be bad and simply think about our moms. There are countless things that are not sexist or wrong in any capacity, whatsoever. You still wouldn't feel comfortable doing them around your mom. If it would feel awkward around your mom, then it might not be appropriate for a lot of wider audiences. Especially where we are potentially involving a professional capacity.
- wsc981 13y ago
  If there was a hypothetical "dickstare" app for woman (to objectify men and their body parts) I wouldn't make a big deal of it. Seems to me a lot of woman do objectify men. For example when I'm browsing the Dutch Viva forums, there are plenty of topics on so called "fuck buddies". Male friends that are not relationship material but good enough for sex. Some topics from the last few weeks are: * Traineeship Suriname[1]: a topic about a Dutch girl that is going for a traineeship in Suriname and she has a certain fetish for black people and is mainly interested in having sex with said people. * Do you have a fuck buddy[2]: an inquiry of which readers from the forums have a fuck buddy. Another example could be some Coca-Cola commercials [3][4]. Do we feel (as men) offended by how these commercials objectify our gender? [1]: http://forum.viva.nl/forum/Seks/Stage_Suriname/list_messages/168998 http://forum.viva.nl/forum/Seks/Stage_Suriname/list_messages... [2]: http://forum.viva.nl/forum/Seks/Fuckbuddy/list_messages/203000 http://forum.viva.nl/forum/Seks/Fuckbuddy/list_messages/2030... [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AqpFcgTqQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AqpFcgTqQ [4]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-wpGHE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-wpGHE
  - sp332 13y ago
    But this is not a talk at a conference, and it is also not supposed to be a joke. It's not comparable at all.
- pstack 13y ago
  Both genders objectify each other on a regular basis. There isn't even anything wrong with that (unless objectifying each other is the whole of your entire concept and interaction with the other gender). The issue here is pretty clear cut. It wasn't appropriate for the setting in which it was presented. Nothing more. A stupid app, Cosmo magazine, pinup posters, physical attraction, and so on aren't really relevant and don't need to be inherently demonized.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Yeah, there is something wrong with objectification. When you reduce someone to an impersonal object, with no regard to their dignity or personality, you dehumanise them. You can essentially do what you will with them.
    - pstack 13y ago
      Guess what? People I don't know in a porn video performing sexual acts as their profession in order to sexually arouse people watching them are "impersonal objects". So are male and female models who exist as clothing-racks or make-up canvases. Musicians and actors exist to entertain and their dignity and personality are not relevant. My garbageman is a guy who exists to make my cans of trash go away. Even you, as highly as you must regard every human interaction in your every moment of existence, surely deal with a great number of people on a regular basis who exist simply to perform a function that you benefit from. As for "you can essentially do what you will with them"... I think that speaks more to you than anyone who enjoys porn, strippers, pinup posters, musicians, dancers, actors, or anyone else that they have no personal regard for. That statement is kind of like a religious person finding out that I'm an atheist and incredulously responding with "if you don't believe in god, how come you're not out raping and murdering people?!".
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        Sadly for me, I struggle with sexual objectification of women. If there was one aspect of my life I wish I cold change instantly, that would be it. I work on it daily. However, when I deal with a garbageman, I treat him with respect because I know he's a human being doing his work. I don't see him as just a garbageman, though I interact with him with that primary purpose. But I can honestly never say I've ever considered my garbageman as only "someone who makes my garbage go away". This would allow me to be an arsehole to him while he is doing his job. Lets say you see the garbageman fall over and break his leg. I'll bet you'd call an ambulance. Congratulations if this is the case, he is no longer just someone who takes away your garbage - you have not objectified him. I never interact with clothes models, but then I don't look at the clothes model when I look at a catalog (not consciously anyway), mostly at the clothes. If I was to interact with them, then I would hope not to treat them as just an object. When I watch a good movie, I interact with the character the actor plays - I don't objectify the actor in this case. I knowmthenactor is acting, and appreciate them for their personality and performance. As for strippers and porn: I've never been to a stripshow in my life, and will never do so. I've had plenty of opportunities, but have always declined. Why? I don't want to objectify the strippers. And I don't want them objectifying me as the punter. For porn: that's something I try to avoid at all costs. Not easy.
sp332 13y ago
Specifically, it makes the women in the audience feel like they are only wanted for their tits and nothing else. It throws away the rest of the woman and says, we only need the tits.

chris_wot 13y ago

"Titstare" was designed to allow men stare at women's breasts. In other words, for one reason only: objectification of women and their body parts. If you can't see that here, I'm not sure what else to say to you!

laichzeit0 13y ago
What if, let's just make this hypothetical for a second, woman want men to stare at their breasts? Would you still have an issue?
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Where you are going with this is so ridiculous I won't be responding, other than with this response!
  - laichzeit0 13y ago
    It's not ridiculous at all. It's one of the fundamental assumptions you're making in all your arguments but unwilling to put down as an axiom.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      Fine, I'll respond then. If some women don't find it offensive, all I need to find are women who did find it offensive, belittling, discouraging or isolating. Or some men who believed it was offensive, belittling, discouraging or isolating to women. Like myself and a bunch of others.
      - laichzeit0 13y ago
        Yes and what will you conclude from that? Some find it offensive, some do not. It's by no means universal and some kind of "necessary truth".
        chris_wot 13y ago
        Many do find it offensive. As many find the word "nigger" racist, but some do not doesn't disprove that it is a racist term. So it is here.
        WayneDB 13y ago
        A word can't be racist. A word can be used by racists, but the word itself - no. There is a whole spectrum out there. The word "nigger" is a term of endearment for many.
- sp332 13y ago
  This hypothetical is not useful. You don't have to take it as an arbitrary "axiom" for the argument; you could empirically measure some of the women who are offended by this talk.
  - laichzeit0 13y ago
    The reason why it's useful is because in your case (empirically measure) it becomes at best "relative". There may be cultures / societies where woman desire men to stare at their breasts. In this case his argument would mean naught.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      Was the app presented in such a culture? Where are you going with this?
    - sp332 13y ago
      Maybe? My point is, empirically, we are not in that culture! Edit: oh wait... You're saying that maybe the guys in the presentation are not reducing women to their physical bits, but actually treating them as human beings who like being treated this way? If so there is a simple way to disprove it: The women can't say "no". Since the women are not given any agency, they are not being treated as human beings but as mere objects with no control over how their bodies are used.
- pstack 13y ago
  I think we would be better served if we stopped seeing everything as sexist or not sexist and determining that if a thing is not, then everyone should shut up and leave it alone. Instead, let's dispense with the labels or making anyone out to be bad and simply think about our moms. There are countless things that are not sexist or wrong in any capacity, whatsoever. You still wouldn't feel comfortable doing them around your mom. If it would feel awkward around your mom, then it might not be appropriate for a lot of wider audiences. Especially where we are potentially involving a professional capacity.
wsc981 13y ago
If there was a hypothetical "dickstare" app for woman (to objectify men and their body parts) I wouldn't make a big deal of it. Seems to me a lot of woman do objectify men. For example when I'm browsing the Dutch Viva forums, there are plenty of topics on so called "fuck buddies". Male friends that are not relationship material but good enough for sex. Some topics from the last few weeks are: * Traineeship Suriname[1]: a topic about a Dutch girl that is going for a traineeship in Suriname and she has a certain fetish for black people and is mainly interested in having sex with said people. * Do you have a fuck buddy[2]: an inquiry of which readers from the forums have a fuck buddy. Another example could be some Coca-Cola commercials [3][4]. Do we feel (as men) offended by how these commercials objectify our gender? [1]: http://forum.viva.nl/forum/Seks/Stage_Suriname/list_messages/168998 http://forum.viva.nl/forum/Seks/Stage_Suriname/list_messages... [2]: http://forum.viva.nl/forum/Seks/Fuckbuddy/list_messages/203000 http://forum.viva.nl/forum/Seks/Fuckbuddy/list_messages/2030... [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AqpFcgTqQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AqpFcgTqQ [4]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-wpGHE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-wpGHE
- sp332 13y ago
  But this is not a talk at a conference, and it is also not supposed to be a joke. It's not comparable at all.
pstack 13y ago
Both genders objectify each other on a regular basis. There isn't even anything wrong with that (unless objectifying each other is the whole of your entire concept and interaction with the other gender). The issue here is pretty clear cut. It wasn't appropriate for the setting in which it was presented. Nothing more. A stupid app, Cosmo magazine, pinup posters, physical attraction, and so on aren't really relevant and don't need to be inherently demonized.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Yeah, there is something wrong with objectification. When you reduce someone to an impersonal object, with no regard to their dignity or personality, you dehumanise them. You can essentially do what you will with them.
  - pstack 13y ago
    Guess what? People I don't know in a porn video performing sexual acts as their profession in order to sexually arouse people watching them are "impersonal objects". So are male and female models who exist as clothing-racks or make-up canvases. Musicians and actors exist to entertain and their dignity and personality are not relevant. My garbageman is a guy who exists to make my cans of trash go away. Even you, as highly as you must regard every human interaction in your every moment of existence, surely deal with a great number of people on a regular basis who exist simply to perform a function that you benefit from. As for "you can essentially do what you will with them"... I think that speaks more to you than anyone who enjoys porn, strippers, pinup posters, musicians, dancers, actors, or anyone else that they have no personal regard for. That statement is kind of like a religious person finding out that I'm an atheist and incredulously responding with "if you don't believe in god, how come you're not out raping and murdering people?!".
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      Sadly for me, I struggle with sexual objectification of women. If there was one aspect of my life I wish I cold change instantly, that would be it. I work on it daily. However, when I deal with a garbageman, I treat him with respect because I know he's a human being doing his work. I don't see him as just a garbageman, though I interact with him with that primary purpose. But I can honestly never say I've ever considered my garbageman as only "someone who makes my garbage go away". This would allow me to be an arsehole to him while he is doing his job. Lets say you see the garbageman fall over and break his leg. I'll bet you'd call an ambulance. Congratulations if this is the case, he is no longer just someone who takes away your garbage - you have not objectified him. I never interact with clothes models, but then I don't look at the clothes model when I look at a catalog (not consciously anyway), mostly at the clothes. If I was to interact with them, then I would hope not to treat them as just an object. When I watch a good movie, I interact with the character the actor plays - I don't objectify the actor in this case. I knowmthenactor is acting, and appreciate them for their personality and performance. As for strippers and porn: I've never been to a stripshow in my life, and will never do so. I've had plenty of opportunities, but have always declined. Why? I don't want to objectify the strippers. And I don't want them objectifying me as the punter. For porn: that's something I try to avoid at all costs. Not easy.

sp332 13y ago

Specifically, it makes the women in the audience feel like they are only wanted for their tits and nothing else. It throws away the rest of the woman and says, we only need the tits.