If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The objectification of women dehumanises them.
The objectification of sex dehumanises sex.
Whereas sex itself used to be taboo, and therefore "kinky", now this is not the case. The idea of "kinky" has moved further to the extreme, such as sado-masochism and coerced/forced sex.
Taboo is seen as glamourous in many cases, especially among the young.
Where you have a society that sees women and sex as objects for their gratification, and you have a society that glamourises forced sex, then you have problems.
It's exactly the same with youth. When you have a society that objectifies youth, you can't be surprised when you have a nation full of people obsessed by youth- e.g. paedophilia.
b) I'm sure most of your friends would think you need an attitude adjustment if you said that to them.
c) No it isn't. It's re-inforcing people's insecurites and making them less like adults and more needy as people.
So we were better off when sex was totally taboo?
His comment just sounds like things were better when sex was taboo, it is not that we are more open about sex that is the problem, it is the way sex is used in marketing etc.
Being open about sex isn't really what I was getting at.
I seem to remember a womens mag with "Teach your man how to beat the bunny" which went on to explain how to turn your bloke into someone who was better in bed than using a vibrator.
I've seen many articles on how to change your boyfriend into a different type of person and fix his faults and what not.
I'm sure the winner won't be held down and forced to have her tits changed.
there is a difference between objectification of people and extreme sex though
i know plenty of shallow people who like to just 'fuck a bird' then not see them again, whilst i know people in long term fulfilling relationships who love their partners who love super dirty sex
don't confuse the 2
exactly, and women's magazine have a go at womens' bodys more than mens magazines, men like women almost no matter what....
and i'm sure some of you ould think it's fine about the indepndants article the other day on why 'men are crap' - as if id listen to rebecca 'celebrity whore'
loos :rolleyes:
the double standards are a fucking disgrace to be honest!
Yes.
I haven't confused the two, I can't see that anyone else has either.
from kermit
when the only people who do things because they're taboo are idiots
then toagberg said
then you said
and so i said "there is a difference between the 2 and a very big one at that"
objectification of sex has nothing to do with extreme sex.
and is this(bad joke by a crap magazine) advert less bad than magazines telling women what their man should be like i dont think so
It is always going to be double standards. I don't see what the fuss is about to be honest. It was a light hearted competition. Of course if men started posting things about every time they see stuff that is sexist against them then we would just be "petty" and have no sense of humour.
Also, your point completely ignores the whole social dynamics of the relationship between the genders. Women have traditionally been the subservient pretty ornaments, which makes denigrating comments toward women much more serious, and much more important.
I don't think people from the dominant social group can quite appreciate that, tbh. If a girl has her arse felt then that is a threatening situation, because of the connotations; if a bloke has his arse felt up then it doesn't have those connotations. The same example can be transferred to discussions about many other "jokes" and "light-hearted" behaviour.
I also feel the attack on women's magazines isn't really completely relevant. The point being made is not that the women will feel inferior for having small boobs- although that is a significant factor- the point is the objectification of women. Women's magazines have many faults, but one thing they do not do is objectify women.
The lad's mags do objectify women. The lad's mags separate a woman basically down to her tits and arse, and that is what this competition does. It is not about making your girlfriend happier or more beautiful in any meanigful sense, a boob job is treated in the same vein as putting a spolier and blue lights on your Saxo.
same to womens mags, i hate seeing aticles like ''make your man better in bed'' and stuff
bollocks tbh
I'm not saying its not offensive just that it isn't surprising and I am not sure it is any more or less offensive than anything they usually have in their mags.
Why would you say that?
I don't think it is the case that women's magazines lower men to their abs and arse.
I don't think women's magazines are healthy, and I think they make everyone feel inferior by having such unrealistic ideals of beauty, but I don't think they objectify. Or not in the way that is relevant in this case.
Lads mags define a woman by her tits and arse. That is a fact. Women's mags tend to state that she is an inferior person if she doesn't have the perfect tits and arse, but they don't define a person solely by their secondary sexual characteristics.
It can appear to be a fine line, and I suspect I'm not making myself clear.
The second sentence is an irrelevance.
Why do you say that the imbalance is shifting the other way? Given that women are still earning 1/3 less than men, and are almost certain never to get the top job in a company, how do you justify your argument that equality has "swung the other way"? How do you justify that women are more dominant than men, or even as dominant?
No, but that is the point.
It's not an argument about one stupid competition about a boob job, it is an argument about what that stupid competition represents. And it represents everything that the lads mags are about- dehumanising women into their respective body parts.
no that they have small boobs
since when is big boobs the only thing?
some men like smaller perter breasts
big breasts are a bonus personally, but any woman who uses my opinion to justify plastic surgery needs help
People will always have preferences. That isn't the point either.
The problem is that a lot of "male" jobs have been replaced by technolgy, by machines and so on. I haven't seen the statistics, they'd be interesting to read....
Gender roles are still very set, it's visible through out the UK... Less so economically and socially than fifty years ago, but women still earn a third less than men, we are still subject to sexual harassment (which is seen as funny by a lot of men in my experience), we are still discriminated against in some jobs because we are stereotyped as the type who are going to leave and have a baby and cost the company money in maternity pay.
A man can dress effeminate, groom himself ad still be a man.... If a woman "lets herself go" she's automatically seen as a 'dog' or a 'dyke'.
At the end of the day it seems Ok to objectify breasts (traditionally sustainers of life), but not a man's penis.
There are several reasons for this, not just sexism
Yes, but also some industries are quickly becoming women only, marketing for example
And thats just rubbish, if either sex dont live up to the 'perfect' standard they are looked down on.
A 'women only' marketing company? A lot of building sites are men only'... Women are getting a lot more jobs in areas like marketing, secretarial work but the majority of the time their bosses are male.
I heard on the radio that 'thinner' women tend to be more employable according to survey results (if anybody knows the whereabouts of this survey, I'd love to see it)... Still objectified then? Perhaps 'thinner' men are more employable too?
I see your point though.
I meant more on the level of gender roles. Men are slowly starting to adopt 'female' traits in the way they look... Yet it seems that on the level of gender stereotypes if a woman still wants to look attractive, she has to stay in her mould.
Yes, of course there is sexism, but there is also the factor of children, more women look after kids and therefore have time out from their job. More men are driven for success (for social or biological reasons) and enter fields where salary is the main focus. Some women enter the caring professions, teaching etc. which pay crap..... there are lots of reasons, I dont think you will ever get equal pay, equal opportunity yes, but not equal pay.
Maybe not thin men, but tall men and attractive ones definately. And I'd rather work in marketing than building, but thats a side issue.
and moonrat, dont you think having equal length paternity leave to maternity leave would be a good thing in the sexual equality movement?