utopian Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 This is more of a light hearted thread concerning some relevant serious issues. It is a more common theme these days (though more publicly denied) that women are perturbed that there is not enough sexual objectification of men in the media; http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/popculture/anna-kendrick-fed-up-with-lack-of-male-nudity-on-game-of-thrones/vi-AAb3eUG?ocid=mailsignout while there is obviously no lack of sexual objectification of women. Game of thrones is a great example, noted by many to be full of boobies galore, but no real male nudity. Compared to the rampant and often flamboyant acceptance of female nudity in many aspects of media, male nudity is a very hushed and hidden thing. You see it every once in a while in things like "Magic Mike" or in themes such as "50 Shades of Grey", so sure it's out there, but as women are noting, they are certainly not getting their fare share of male sexualization and objectification. It can obviously be seen, however, that women are starting to come out of the woodwork more publicly in favor of accepting being sexual with men. I, like I am sure many people here, like Stephan, grew up with a crazy mother who confused my ideas about it, but realized in my more recent years what women can really be like. So it gets me thinking, in this day and age of women empowerment, when so many of them are championing freedoms including sexuality, why is it still such a taboo for them to express and pursue their interests in men? I think I found the answer one day a while back while reading a book called "my secret garden" http://www.amazon.com/My-Secret-Garden-Womens-Fantasies/dp/0704332949 The book is by a self proclaimed feminist (wait, don't discount this yet!) who wrote the book detailing several anonymous letters describing women's sexual fantasies concerning men, and even more. She describes, in the book, how there are two kinds of "feminists"; feminists that believe in freedom for women in all areas including sexual expression, and feminists who believe sexuality should be suppressed to better control men. She goes on to describe how there was a small movement of "freedom feminists" to have their sexuality more accepted. Here is the important part; the "suppression feminists" attacked the "freedom feminists" socially, destroying their public image. Nancy Friday herself was attacked by "Ms. Magazine" as "not a real feminist" and diminishing her character. Now, apply what we know here on FDR about feminism only actually being a front for socialism. "Suppressive feminism" makes sense for this agenda, because women are more susceptible to social manipulation, and suppressing their sexual desires keeps them controlled in ways that can move them towards socialism. It also controls men, because men are renown for naturally higher libidos, and will follow any government ideology including socialism if it gets them laid more. And so, with a heavy heart, I must put forward the idea men that, in order to free women and allow them to express themselves more openly, we must cast aside our hopes for an independent future and well paying career and subject ourselves to the wanton lusts of women. I know, I know, it's hard being objectified in such undignified ways when men are obviously so globally sexualized already. But the real issue here is that socialism hidden by modern feminism must be combated, as well as women liberated. I therefore choose, oh so grudgingly, to subject myself to the sexual objectification of women, leading by example and volunteering as tribute.
Mister Mister Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 The objectification of men is not primarily sexual - men are objectified for their utility rather than their fertility. Karen Straughan talks about this. While a nude woman is more appealing to most men, a nude man is not as appealing as one in a uniform demonstrating high status. 1
PatrickC Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 The only problem I have with this thesis. Is that consequently it would appear that the 'freedom' feminists have won. Females are more promiscuous than they have largely ever been in history. I certainly agree that there is a socialist agenda underpining many feminist theories and I also agree that there are feminists that want the market value for their sexuality to increase. Hence their opposition to pornography or their lobbying for increased penalties on the Johns that frequent prostitutes.
DaviesMa Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 The pill, which was made commercially available in 1960 may have had the greatest impact on female sexualisation by dramatically changing the cost-benefit scenario for women with regards to sex. Women no longer had to wait until the man was committed before having sex so this allowed for her to enjoy sex whilst testing the man for his suitability as a husband and father. This allowed women to see if they could snag the Alpha male by having sex with him immediately and hoping that he would fall into a relationship with her, or else to have dates with the beta male and test his provider skills and maybe settle for him if she couldn't bag the alpha. (Alpha lays, beta pays.) As women could use their sexual appeal to their advantage before marriage, this has turned into an arms race where women increasingly dress more provocatively and sexually in order to gain power over men.
utopian Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 The objectification of men is not primarily sexual - men are objectified for their utility rather than their fertility. Karen Straughan talks about this. While a nude woman is more appealing to most men, a nude man is not as appealing as one in a uniform demonstrating high status. Agreed, but do you think men are as prevalently objectified in this way as women are sexually? To tell you the truth, I don't spend much time thinking about how men are primarily displayed. The only problem I have with this thesis. Is that consequently it would appear that the 'freedom' feminists have won. Females are more promiscuous than they have largely ever been in history. I certainly agree that there is a socialist agenda underpining many feminist theories and I also agree that there are feminists that want the market value for their sexuality to increase. Hence their opposition to pornography or their lobbying for increased penalties on the Johns that frequent prostitutes. I did a thread about this, concerning how "suppression" feminists have won; https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43641-what-exactly-was-it-that-feminism-achieved/ And while I agree women are more sexually liberated than ever, Anna Kendrick is still complaining she does not get to see enough dick. Perhaps, both sides of feminism have won? As supported in my thread, the law has been unreasonably tipped in women's favor, as well as the economic and marital situations. As women could use their sexual appeal to their advantage before marriage, this has turned into an arms race where women increasingly dress more provocatively and sexually in order to gain power over men. Aha, so, do you see the concept that, just like women objectify themselves sexually to gain power over men, men have yet to explore options to objectify themselves to gain power over women? As Rose says, men are already objectified, with status/finance. Why have we never explored the power of our sexual objectification?
Recommended Posts