Job Discussion Forums

[sidjameson]

Well said Leeroy.
Just to add. We now live in a world, the western part anyway, where women going out to see male strippers is totally ok but what man could get away with it.
I love objectifying women, really love it. Quite happy to be objectified myself to boot. Feminists this is not the same thing as being sexist or oppressive. This point seems largely forgotten as the politcal landscape has been invaded by a bunch of sour extremists who I often feel are only so vocal in the dislike of men out of nothing but bitterness. I won't say what they are bitter about because I'd only be crucified again but lets just say that your average extremist looks like they spent many a teenage saturday night at home watching the telly. Stereotype, sure but who would say there's no truth to it?

[yaramaz]

I think we need to define objectification/objectifying more clearly here because I think I too want to stand up and say, 'My name is yaramaz and I objectify men. And women. And possibly cats and dogs.'

Is objectifying a person simply looking at them and judging or fancying or dismissing them based on their physical appearance and nowt more? You see them as a physical object because you dont know their inner workings.

Yeah, I do that.

However, if I want to spend any time with that person it is essential that wit and brains and kindness be part of the, um, package. For mindless people-watching from a cafe, physical beauty is a definite draw, as are funky clothes or hair cuts or ways of moving... I love the human form (hence my almost career in art that ended because I couldnt actually....find a career in art) I like looking at people even though I dont know them or love them etc etc.

Buuuuuuuuuuut in a relationship, physical beauty is the least important aspect, simply because a tall handsome man with sizeable shoes and bank accounts is USELESS if he is mean and selfish and disrespectful etc.

[denise]

Shall we call the meeting of Objectifiers Anonymous to order?

I, too, appreciate a nice-looking man. In fact, if he's nice-looking enough, I might even do a double-take just to appreciate him again.

There. I've said it.

And I echo all the others who've said that hotness is not enough if you're actually going to spend time with the person.

And might I add (and I think this is where a couple of these threads have gone awry) that publicly commenting on someone's hotness can be a sensitive issue? It's one thing to appreciate T & A, or the male package, or whatever else (a friend of mine once told me he really liked my collarbone, so every now and then I offer him a quick peek), but we should know when it is and isn't OK to vocalize that appreciation.

d

[Laura C]

Nothing wrong at all with thinking someone is hot -- I've already mentioned that my male friends don't pretend they don't look at T+A. But objectifying is when you ONLY see that about a person and have no interest in er, exploring further. You see the person as an object and not as an individual.

I think if that definition is used, most guys on this thread would agree that actually they *don't* objectify women. They occasionally perve, which is entirely different!

L

[Capergirl]

[khmerhit]

Capergirl observed, most astutely

[SueH]

The difference I have observed is that although many of us may observe attractive physical features of somebody of the opposite sex, I think it fair to say that men do talk to boobs during the course of social interaction whereas women don't talk at mens' crotches!

This is only an observation from a lesbian viewpoint and other women here might have a different view. Mind you, I can be a terrible flirt with anyone who is intelligent, but find that testosterone does tend to get in the way sometimes of the expression of that intelligence. My nightmare evening would be be with Dan but suspect I could have a stimulating, enjoyable and mildly argumentative one with Johnslat and his ilk.

[johnslat]

Dear SueH,
Why, thanks for the compliment. As I'm engaged, I suspect my fiance might not be too thrilled at my having " a stimulating, enjoyable and mildly argumentative " evening with another women, no matter what her gender preference might be. Not that she's the overly possessive or jealous type, but human nature being what it is, well, there are places that may not be truly dangerous, but a wise person avoids them, anyway.
However, I'll be glad to send my ilk around any time.
Regards,
John

[guest of Japan]

I'm not a piece of meat. I really object to all this objectifying. This is truly the most objectional part of human nature. If the object of your desire is only an abject object and no higher then I'd appreciate if you'd no longer subject us to such an objectional subject. At the very least we shouldn't be rejected or dejected bases solely on objects. This is my objective. Does anyone object?

[johnslat]

Dear guest of japan,
Sheesh - some people just have NO sense of humor. Speaking - or rather, writing - as a fellow piece of meat, endowed by evolution and/or a Higher Power with consciousness, ethics and morals (well, a few of those, anyway) and all those nasty animalistic instincts, I object to your objections. But, on a grammatical level, can the object of my desire be the subject of this thread?
Regards,
John

[guest of Japan]

For the grammar question I'll defer to whatever Stephen Jones says. I hope you don't object.

[johnslat]

Dear guest of Japan,
Why, I don't object at all - subject to Stephen's approval, of course.
Regards,
John

[James_T_Kirk]

[bayabule]

Hi Sara and all the other girls out there. I'm fairly new to the forum and avoided this string due to the sheer size of it, and the fear of being ripped to shreds by the boys, but to get back to your original, and excellent post, just one thing...

[bayabule]

wow, just viewed my post and they beeped the British word for a male chicken: c*c**rel but left in c**k? Should I have said rooster? Not quite the same tho.