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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
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
And about this issue, totally wrong.
Good article. Fucked up starting position though. Men already want to fuck the kind of women that you see in FHM. Always have done, always will do. They might settle for "less" (and find out that it's actually "more") but it's not magazines that make men want a certain look. It's in-built.
Just like women drop men for better partners, so will men drop women. Men select on mostly on looks. What's wrong with that? Nothing.
Just as it's unreasonable to expect women to change to fit what men really want, it's wrong to expect men to change what they really want. Stupid too, because denied desire only gets stronger. It shows an ignorance of how male sexuality works just as much as the gropers show an ignorance of how female sexuality works.
Of course you do.
People have backed up their opinion, you've just chosen not to listen. I could post all of the one line retorts, but i don't have to, the thread has an index.
Do you think the fact that women are generally weaker than men and until recently and in some cases still treated unequally to men, means that they should be treated as special cases when objectified, whereas men are just expected to get on with it.
And this ignores the social dynamics between a man groping a woman, and a woman groping a man.
Ever read a girls mag...it's basically just the same as a lads mag.
What are the social dynamics? a man gropes a women because he has power, right? Or is it you making that assumption. If I groped a girl it would be because I thought she was fit, same with girls groping guys. I and most men wouldn't dare feel up girls and try and get them home to the bed just because we are stronger.
Tbh, most men don't give a fuck if a women has hairy armpits.
just cos they aint in a mag doesn't mean they aint dating and marrying and raising kids!
is there an epidemic of groping that i am unaware of?
i'm under the impression that sexual harrasment in the workplace is actualy down cos of serious rules.
if it's happening more in pubs and clubs then i'd think the binge drinking culture is to blame for that rather than some mindless mag.
All the women in FHM have big tits too. It doesn't mean I don't find less busty women attractive.
some people must be very easily hypnotised klint ...is there any connection?
Yes, I do. You seem to think that objectification means that the woman has been photographed and is "an inaminate object on the page that it is impossible to interact with". This is not what it means, apart from in an extremely simplistic way. What objectification means is that the representation of women (which is a lot more than the mere physical photo) is denying the subjectivity of the woman (not the specific woman, but the mental representation). The poses are all submissive poses, denying female sexuality and they are all about fulflling male sexual desire - they are not about what women find sexy and women's desires. They deny that a woman is a human being with feelings, intelligence, desires of her own - they present the woman as a mere object to be wanked over (the current vogue for bukkake and facials in porn is a good example of this), not as a woman with her own sexuality.
No, all people have done is present their opinion as if it is fact and haven't used any outside references to back it up - all they are basically saying is "its just a laugh because I say it is" and then ignore contrary opinions, especially the opnions of some of the women on this thread.
After reading this thread I think I have too..what is it exactly? I thought it was basically having no respect for someone and viewing them as something for your pleasure only. Yes/no?
ETA: Just read the post you made a while ago, got it now.
No. If you read my posts (why do people ignore half of what I write?) I say that objectification of men is not healthy either. However, you cannot ignore the historical and social context that women do get a raw deal in this society.
It's pointless - klintock lives in a world of his own where countries don't exist, prices spontaneously arise as if by magic completely disconnected from production costs, women are to blame for being groped and hold all the power in sexual relationships and ideals of beauty aren't cultural.
Read the above post, read that link I posted, do a search on google.
second that laughter
*clap* I had, by the time you replied...This thread is 22 pages long.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say "men fuck who they are told to fuck", to deny that ideals of beauty are culturally determined* is to deny history and reality (although klintock does that fairly regularly). Look at the history of the female nude in art. Look at what is considered sexy in afro-carribean culture and compare it to white western culture. Suntans in European culture used to be considered common and unsexy as it denoted that someone with a suntan was a manual labourer and worked outside - pale skin was sexy. With the rise of airtravel that changed. There are examples everywhere.
See, this is why Blagsta is so lost. He gets everything exactly the wrong way around.
Then consider if you had to go to art classes to fancy your teacher at school. Or your first crush. Then realise that Blagsta is full of it. He mistakes books for experience and ideas about reality for experience.
Of course, we are all one big amorphous blob that thinks communal ideas about who is hot or not, and we all agree on everything due to our "culture". you know, the usual poor thinking skills.
Everyone's easily hypnotised. That's the fucking problem. Is' getting them to wake up that's the hard part.
So because of their bad deal in the past, they deserve special treatment?
To think that we live in an equal society now is wrong. However I am not arguing for "special treatment" (whatever that means). What I am doing is saying that things always have to be looked at in their historical and social context.
Which is exactly the point.
This is rather tedious now.
Think beyond the superficial and the problems that these magazines prolong and hard-wire become self-evident. On a superficial level there is nothing wrong with Shakira with her baps out; scratch the surface and see what the problem is.
I would suggest TATU as a case in point, to be quite frank.
MR is missing the point, I suspect wilfully.
Yes but you keep saying "look a womens views in this thread"
Do you think a man groping a women is worse than a women groping a man?
Women have always used their looks as a tool I don't see how these women who expolit it are any worse than the lads who fall for it.
I don't follow your train of thought.
Worse in what way? In potential outcome? Probably. Difficult to say though without a context.