Why Women Are Seen as Sex Objects More Today by Men.

a reply to: Spruce

Everybody get nude and out on the streets. The primitive tribes can run around naked without thinking of sex, I am sure as soon as we get used to it we can do that too.

Wondering why the other post got removed, it wasn't that dirty?

I only read the first page of the thread , but in my opinion you are all quibbling over semantics.


Men find women sexy
Women find Men sexy
Men find men sexy
Women find women sexy.

They could be wearing a Garbage Bag, if it was positioned correctly someone would find it erotic.

Because we are LIFE
And Life primary focus is to survive and procreate.

a reply to: Peeple


Boring!? BUHAHAHAHAHA! I can't HAHa see it. Hahahaha!

I disagree!

SnF!

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Spruce

Everybody get nude and out on the streets. The primitive tribes can run around naked without thinking of sex, I am sure as soon as we get used to it we can do that too.

Wondering why the other post got removed, it wasn't that dirty?

They only do that because bigger survival needs were on their mind , eating, keeping warm etc .

These have all been fixed in modern society leaving us to focus on the other way to survive... and focus we will.

Q

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Are you saying you and your wife have an open sexual relationship, or that when you are older you will. When you want to be with someone younger?

That is private. My point is...honesty. keep it real and dont pretend to be something your not.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

In today's society, the marriages are ones of equality. If not, it's because it's not wanted for some reason or other. They both work inside and outside the home. They both have equal say in the structure of the marriage.

Ah ladyinwaiting and your infinite wisdom yet again comes through. Agreed.

Reasonable people's marriages work well for sure, but I believe the age of narcissism, and self-centeredness is is gutting relationships, families and marriages, both equally by men and women.

Men, if you think women dressing in a manner that shows off their body is asking for attention, you're right it is... but not in the lazy way you are choosing to think about it. We are sexual beings the same as you... we love sex, crave it and want to be seen as sexual beings. BEING would be the key word there as opposed to object. Instead you choose to see women who do this as not an opportunity for something great, whether temporary or permanent... but as advertising, as cheap, as sluts with no potential for anything but being a outlet without feelings making it perfectly okay to yell lewd things, that should be saved for talking about after it's decided that sex is going to happen.

This is where overzealous wanna-be feminists get schooled too... it's not degrading to want a man to look at you as a sexual BEING. Our mothers and grandmothers fought for this ffs. As much as it was about getting to vote and work and choose when or if we wanted a family and choosing if we would stay home with the kids or not, to get married or not... they fought for the social acceptance of being able to say "I want to have sex", to be able to say to men that we're not necessarily intending to marry that our bodies and minds crave sexual connection with you, without being labeled sluts and whores... now they label us submissive. Screw that.

Now we're submissive sluts... that's just great.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I'm not sure about that. The Victorian man got aroused by an ankle. We got over that, didn't we?
Old peeps in Kreta fancied dresses with one boob out.
Egyptians were sorrounded by lookthrough dresses, wouldn't have gotten all the pyramid planning done, if they were as easily disracted as modern men seem to be...

I also just realised I am very German...
What is considered as dirty on this American moderated site, would be a coffetable converstion sentence over here.
Cultural differences, ey?

Want what you want. Own it though and don't cry about it because you got what you asked for.

a reply to: Realtruth

Yea the women like the attention. Look at Facebook and how many women are over exposing for LIKES.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I think that's more of a personal choice thing. I don't honestly think my partner thinks, the same way as you do. What works for your relationship is fine.
With our relationship we don't point out attractive people to each other. And if he wants to leave me because he wants to have sex with younger women, I would view it as a weakness of character. We may fancy other people but you make a choice to be in a monogamous relationship. It would seem odd to throw away a life together just for sex.

a reply to: Peeple

I think there is a huge difference between the european countries and America on the subjects of nudity and sex.

I was shocked when I first came here and saw women dancing without tops on tv is common. I once saw that on a childrens show and almost had a stroke.

That was a long time ago. Now we go only to nude beaches, and when my male collegues and I are changing into our uniforms, we continue our conversation without a hitch- as if we weren't standing in front of each other in our underwear!


Point being- sex is not always associated with sex. Sex is much more than nakedness.

Oh- and we do point out hotties to each other. We have no illusions about physical attraction continuing to be a reality for us both.
But even there, I make a difference between ogling other people, even fantasizing, and our very real need for a secure and stable relationship to lean on.

Why do so many people think that things are somehow different today than they have always been? You do realize that every generation has felt the same way, right? It's always "Why can't things be like they used to be?"

Prostitution is the oldest profession and women have always been seen as sexual creatures. There is ample evidence of this throughout history and the only time it changed, on the surface, was in the Victorian era through the 1950's but that was ONLY on the surface. Women were just as sexualized in a hush-hush manner because it wasn't considered dignified to talk about it in public.

You can argue against our animalistic nature all you want but the primary role of females in all mammal species is to mate and care for their young. Men will always see women as a sperm-receptacle because evolution made us both that way. Our culture has developed the idea of long-term relationships and the reason it doesn't work for most people is because we aren't biologically hard-wired to live that way. You can say "well we can choose to not act like animals" but you can look around at all the failed/unhappy marriages and see that going against nature is extremely difficult.

a reply to: Realtruth




I remember her...

ARE we actually being seen more as sexual objects? The OP presumes this and writes his/her view from that standpoint. I've been born too late to have seen the cultural and social shifts, let alone throughout centuries, but I tend to think the view of women as 'sex objects' might not have actually changed, just how they're being seen as sex objects, what the further connotations and implications are, etc.

I've been reading a bit about social history, history of motherhood, history of sex and sexuality, and as these subjects are broader than they may seem here right now, they actually provided quite a bit of info/deductions about gender roles, the way women/sex/men/children were viewed, things like privacy, the amount of 'shame' one should have and how those things were distributed per socio-economic group. Reading that I learned that a LOT has changed within centuries, you know, the approach to sexuality, women etc, but has the actual amount of objectification changed?

I wonder. I suspect mainly the approach to it all has changed, that it's different instead of more or less.

Example: In medieval times the woman was some kind of low IQ lusty devil, so a sex object but a really dangerous and low one. Now she might be a sex object, but that part of the connotation's gone for the most part.

Hmmmz, see what I'm trying to say?

originally posted by: Realtruth
Now before all the feminist’s and feminist sympathizer’s get their feathers in a bunch, please take a moment and read the entire post. I have pondered for quite some time on this topic, but have only recently come up with what I believe may be a good logical answer, and what I have discovered was interesting.

Aside from the MSM, Hollywood, and corporations that exploit women's genders for money, there is something deeper rooted than what many typically would think.

Men started out as hunters/ gatherers, shelter providers, protectors and this role did not changed for ages.

Men’s Roles for Ages
Think about it for a moment, a man is geared to:
1) Hunt for food and gather
2) Provide a home/ Shelter and provide protection for his territory.
3) Insure his genes survive (ie: Procreation/Breeding)

Women’s Roles for Ages, what a women is geared to:
1) Preparing food
2) Taking care of a male’s territory (cleaning) and caring for offspring (children).
3) Produce children to insure her genes were carried on

Re: your points here

1) The term hunter/gatherer does not apply exclusively to men, and was a human activity/label. The typical, though often challenged assumption is that a man primarily hunted (ie; game) , while the woman gathered (eg: nuts, roots, berries etc). Man was not more suited to gathering than woman, and it can be argued that seeing as the chosen hunting technology in many areas for a long time involved atl-atls and driving stuff over a cliff or into blind alleys full of spear-thrower wielding folk that a man's increased size and strength gave precisely no advantage in this pursuit. There is no reason to suggest that women past child bearing/caring-for age, or women who chose not to procreate would not be a full part of a hunt. Atl-atls require no strength after all.

2) When building a shelter involves finding a nice stone ledge to camp under, or bending willow/hazel etc into a dome and covering it with bark or debris, there is no evidence at all to suggest that this was an exclusively male pursuit.

Fast-forward to today’s society. Only in the past century has there been any type of major shift in the positions and roles for men and women, especially in the past few decades.

Today women don't need men for the hunting and gathering anymore, and they don’t need men to protect them. Women have excelled in the work and business arena granting them the ability to get their food by shopping. This new mode of living has also given women the power to purchase/rent a home or apartment (ie: Shelter).

Protection isn't needed anymore because laws, courts, and law enforcement officers there to enforce territory protections and punishment.

Women have also found a surrogate for their procreation needs, it’s called a sperm bank.

And with the advent of 2/3 of the divorces filed these days are by women, it only adds credence that women do not need men in their typical “Mans Role of Ages”.

www.divorce-lawyer-source.com...

With women continuing on with their “Roles for Ages” and coupled with today’s modus operandi, what’s left for men to see women as?

So, because women no longer need man to hunt, hit people, provide sperm and build houses, it's only logical that men should increasingly see women as sex objects?

Is that your gist?

Coz if so, that makes entirely no sense.

Never seen a woman as a friend, partner or equal? By the sounds of it, you have not, but i'm more than happy for you to tell me that i've misinterpreted your post - i re-read it several times to try to make sure that i got it.

ETA: Stone tool/weapon production is also seen by many as none-gender defined, and overall your assumptions about gender in prehistory are pretty wide of the mark. All that crap probably started at the end of the neolithic with urbanisation, farming and sedentary lifestyles imo. But than i think pretty much everything started going wrong then.

a reply to: Answer

The idea of long-term relationships exists in a lot of cultures. because of the need to pool resources to raise children.
I don't think going against nature as you call it is that difficult. A choice is made to have sex with another person, people are perfectly capable of saying no.
If you are a person who does not wish to be monogamous, then find like minded people.

bleh dp

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Its not about choice for most. The strip nude and be prostitutes raises a whole other issue of abuse of children, human trafficking for sex, taking abused or troubled teens and addicting them to hard drugs, and its horrendous The percentage of happy hookers is very very low.

I agree with what you're saying about "choice" and certainly don't equate what women are wearing, even if they want to feel really sexy one day and wear something outrageous by most people's views, with them being shady ladies, that has nothing to do with it. Role playing, running with mood swings, is something us women do naturally, and yet in good loving equal relationships, men don't usually get upset with the emotionally expressive way women can be, up and down, elegantly understated one moment, and alluring the next. Its like quicksilver moods and expressions, and really has nothing to do with a woman's inner worth, in fact it is more about the freedom to express yourself.

But the sexual industries are mostly something else and its very very dark and abusive and needs to be stopped. Its criminal exploitation that is taking place in large numbers there.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Realtruth

I remember her...

Yurps, i've "remembered" her on many occasions too. Figging outstanding