Lots of weird people registering recently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey.. respect those that are different from you :D :P :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hehe... I loved when you said they were HOT soon after insane posted about the objetification of women, by the way. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>.>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Women and men (and everyone in between and off the gender scale) are all objectified sometimes. As long as we can understand that in real life, people are complex and not defined by one characteristic (i.e. physical hotness) then... if you enjoy it... (and I, for one, do...) keep objectifying! :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come on. Those Victoria's Secret models ARE HOT.

They are, Mad. ;P

Women and men (and everyone in between and off the gender scale) are all objectified sometimes. As long as we can understand that in real life, people are complex and not defined by one characteristic (i.e. physical hotness) then... if you enjoy it... (and I, for one, do...) keep objectifying!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria's Secret is making their money by exploiting women and making them objects for men to drool over. It's not "sometimes" for those models, it's their entire existence - to be treated as sexual objects.

 

Women and men (and everyone in between and off the gender scale) are all objectified sometimes. As long as we can understand that in real life, people are complex and not defined by one characteristic (i.e. physical hotness) then... if you enjoy it... (and I, for one, do...) keep objectifying!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria's Secret is making their money by exploiting women and making them objects for men to drool over. It's not "sometimes" for those models, it's their entire existence - to be treated as sexual objects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, they are paid for that. Some people are paid to be seen as heros, some to be seen as geniuses, other to be seen as safety.

Well, they are paid for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money is the root of all evil.

 

Well, they are paid for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money is the root of all evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Give me yours and enholy. :wink:

 

Well, they are paid for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money is the root of all evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It can buy neat stuff though. Therefore evil=good.

 

 

Well, they are paid for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money is the root of all evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It can buy neat stuff though. Therefore evil=good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You bet it can!

Well, they are paid for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a pitiful exchange.

 

Well, they are paid for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a pitiful exchange.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are providing a service. Also, to them, it's a job. If I could be paid that much money to model Victoria's Secret, I probably would too! :D Not every woman would choose to - then again, not every woman chooses to become a dentist, or chooses to become a cashier. Certainly there are other forces at play (some people might not have the privilege to easily become a dentist, or a supermodel!), but that is the world we live in currently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sex appeal being a commodity. I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with sex, either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

Well, they are paid for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a pitiful exchange.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize their objectivation make them the elite at something? The objectivation itself isn't bad for them. Bad for them might be the man who think they are nothing more than sex machines with no feelings whatsoever.

 

 

 

Now you'll say that's what objectivation means, but what I'm saying it has it's pros and cons for them. However, the cons should be understood and accepted by someone who wants to take on a model career. Just as a firefighter understands he might get toasted.

They are providing a service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're just twisting language. The service you speak of is being objectified - stop trying to candy-coat it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, to them, it's a job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't deny it's a job, but again, see my above comment, and my post above your post that I am quoting that says this already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not every woman would choose to - then again, not every woman chooses to become a dentist, or chooses to become a cashier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dentists and cashiers aren't portrayed as objects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sex appeal being a commodity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using your belief in subjectivity, I don't think this is relevant in any way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with sex, either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nor do I. It's when we treat women like the point of their existence is to feed our sexual desires that things get fishy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize their objectivation make them the elite at something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it makes them elite at being stared at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The objectivation itself isn't bad for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh really?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the cons should be understood and accepted by someone who wants to take on a model career. Just as a firefighter understands he might get toasted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not every woman would choose to - then again, not every woman chooses to become a dentist, or chooses to become a cashier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dentists and cashiers aren't portrayed as objects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sex appeal being a commodity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using your belief in subjectivity, I don't think this is relevant in any way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with sex, either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nor do I. It's when we treat women like the point of their existence is to feed our sexual desires that things get fishy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a very large difference between (a) focusing on one part or trait of someone's existence temporarily (such as their trustworthiness when choosing whether to divulge a secret; their sex appeal when enjoying the physical appeal of someone's body) and (B) treating someone like the point of their existence is this one particular part or trait.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hence, you are suggesting that enjoying objectifying women's bodies while watching the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is treating women like the point of their existence is this one particular trait (their sex appeal). I would argue, instead, that you are temporarily focusing on this one trait for your own reason (personal enjoyment), and can do so reasonably without being unfair to women as a whole, as long as it is (and this is key) temporary and not the permanent way in which you view women.

Then underwear model men are abused and objectified as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe they just chose to do that out of their free will. There is no moral dilemma. They do it for the money, end of story. No woman will give up that kind of money just because it 'objectifies' them.

as long as it is (and this is key) temporary and not the permanent way in which you view women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's bad if it's permanent, then it's like saying smoking is okay if you do it every now and then and don't become addicted. But we both know when you smoke, no matter how few and far between your cigarettes are, it's bad for you in that short time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, if you would hear some of the guys that sit around me at school, you would realize that a temporary thing often becomes a mindset.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then underwear model men are abused and objectified as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, but it's a little different as women aren't as visually stimulated as men. I don't know many women that buy men's underwear magazines to [you know what] over the pictures, but I know many in the converse situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe they just chose to do that out of their free will...They do it for the money, end of story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never denied that. What's your point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No woman will give up that kind of money just because it 'objectifies' them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you don't know very many women.

 

as long as it is (and this is key) temporary and not the permanent way in which you view women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's bad if it's permanent, then it's like saying smoking is okay if you do it every now and then and don't become addicted. But we both know when you smoke, no matter how few and far between your cigarettes are, it's bad for you in that short time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, if you would hear some of the guys that sit around me at school, you would realize that a temporary thing often becomes a mindset.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But smoking does permanent damage each and every time you do it - and also (through second hand smoke, odor, etc) can directly harm other people. Temporary objectification of women is pleasurable and does no direct harm to others. (Indirect harm is, of course, more debateable; and clearly my position is that it also causes minimal indirect harm.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The temporary thing does often become a mindset. This is sad. See my response to your next quote :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then underwear model men are abused and objectified as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, but it's a little different as women aren't as visually stimulated as men. I don't know many women that buy men's underwear magazines to [you know what] over the pictures, but I know many in the converse situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This might possibly be TMI, but I do. As do many of my friends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edit]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think this has more to do with feeling sexually liberated within society (many women still don't feel comfortable with their sexuality in today's world and thus underemphasize it, whereas for men, it is expected and thus even overemphasized!) than a lack of capacity for physical arousal. Similarly, for men, their overemphasis of sexuality says more about society's expectations for them than that "all men are dogs!" (and I quote my mother on that point - this was her advice to me upon going to college :P )

 

 

 

Sure, but it's a little different as women aren't as visually stimulated as men. I don't know many women that buy men's underwear magazines to [you know what] over the pictures, but I know many in the converse situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then I must reply, "you don't know very many women".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never denied that. What's your point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That it can be never stopped, only more women will be drawn into it if they're in need of a quick buck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No woman will give up that kind of money just because it 'objectifies' them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you don't know very many women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry. I actually meant, 'no model'. They will never give up their job because of some moral issues.

Then I must reply, "you don't know very many women".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I always thought it was a fact that in general men were sexually stimulated visually and women were stimulated emotionally. That's why the sayings are "all men are dogs" and "chick flicks", not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But smoking does permanent damage each and every time you do it - and also (through second hand smoke, odor, etc) can directly harm other people. Temporary objectification of women is pleasurable and does no direct harm to others. (Indirect harm is, of course, more debateable; and clearly my position is that it also causes minimal indirect harm.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would argue that when men start treating women like objects on an everyday is where indirect harm comes in. But you're right, I didn't take second hand smoke into account.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This might possibly be TMI, but I do. As do many of my friends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's because you're a certain age. In twenty, thirty years, you will most likely not, and all men most likely still will.

 

 

Well, they are paid for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a pitiful exchange.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are providing a service. Also, to them, it's a job. If I could be paid that much money to model Victoria's Secret, I probably would too! :D Not every woman would choose to - then again, not every woman chooses to become a dentist, or chooses to become a cashier. Certainly there are other forces at play (some people might not have the privilege to easily become a dentist, or a supermodel!), but that is the world we live in currently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sex appeal being a commodity. I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with sex, either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My goal in life is to be a model........ I'm just tooooooo lazy hahaha.

 

 

 

But seriously........ It's not that bad of an exchange. They get millions (the lowest paid ios probably like 10 grand an hour?) to be there..for what, 3 hours? And it's not tasteless when they walk out there. There was like...... What.. 2 girls in a thong? Oh.. Not to mention those girls were completely covered up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALL fashion shows will have sexiness to them. Know why? Sex sells. You know it, i know it.... So no one cares about it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT TO EVERYONE......... To be a victorias secret model you can't have a bad reputation...... Aka no glam models, no porn stars..... They don't allow that because the people who actually BUY what's on the runway are willing to spend thousands of dollars and no one wants something if a tramp touched it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These women are all top models for ford and other major agencies....

 

 

 

This might possibly be TMI, but I do. As do many of my friends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's because you're a certain age. In twenty, thirty years, you will most likely not, and all men most likely still will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoa, that's just blatantly untrue. I mean, the supposed sexual prime for women is much higher than the supposed sexual prime for men. (I think 30 versus 18 or something around there?)

 

 

 

 

This might possibly be TMI, but I do. As do many of my friends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's because you're a certain age. In twenty, thirty years, you will most likely not, and all men most likely still will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoa, that's just blatantly untrue. I mean, the supposed sexual prime for women is much higher than the supposed sexual prime for men. (I think 30 versus 18 or something around there?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say you wouldn't be sexually active. I just said you would be sexually stimulated in a different way. Again, what about chick flicks appealing to emotion in women and most ads try and suck guys in via their eyes? You didn't respond to that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just from things I've read, it takes romance to get a woman "in the mood" and nothing more than a flash of thigh to get a man in the mood. That's all I'm saying.

The post is "VICTORIAS SECRET FASHION SHOW"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not...... "MEN ARE TOASTERS WOMEN ARE CROCKPOTS!"

The post is "VICTORIAS SECRET FASHION SHOW"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not...... "MEN ARE TOASTERS WOMEN ARE CROCKPOTS!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info! Anything else you would care to state the obvious about? Here's a good one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'M TYPING ON A KEYBOARD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh that was fun! I can see why you did it!

 

The post is "VICTORIAS SECRET FASHION SHOW"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not...... "MEN ARE TOASTERS WOMEN ARE CROCKPOTS!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info! Anything else you would care to state the obvious about? Here's a good one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'M TYPING ON A KEYBOARD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh that was fun! I can see why you did it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You lie! You lie!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to be honest, if the models are fine with doing it I don't see a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

This might possibly be TMI, but I do. As do many of my friends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's because you're a certain age. In twenty, thirty years, you will most likely not, and all men most likely still will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoa, that's just blatantly untrue. I mean, the supposed sexual prime for women is much higher than the supposed sexual prime for men. (I think 30 versus 18 or something around there?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say you wouldn't be sexually active. I just said you would be sexually stimulated in a different way. Again, what about chick flicks appealing to emotion in women and most ads try and suck guys in via their eyes? You didn't respond to that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just from things I've read, it takes romance to get a woman "in the mood" and nothing more than a flash of thigh to get a man in the mood. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would argue that this type of attitude (i.e. that men and women have completely different ways of experiencing their sexuality) is much more harmful and sexist than viewing attractive sexualized Victoria's Secret models. It is more harmful and sexist precisely BECAUSE it is so subconscious and internalized; we often don't even realize there's anything wrong with what we're saying. When you talk about "things you've read," you're probably more likely talking about the stereotypes you have come to internalize after watching TV and movies, reading (fictional) books, and generally living life within our society (in which individuals often carry out the roles that are expected of them by stereotypes, partially as a result of a self-fulfilling prophecy!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess what I'm saying is - I think you're wrong. I think that for many women, a flash of thigh will lead to arousal. For many men, romance is necessary to lead to arousal. In my experience, in a fairly radical college campus society in which gender roles are examined critically and usually ultimately rejected (making it an interesting case study, I think, for what happens when you remove many of the gender norms), the number of men and women who seek out and/or are satisfied by purely sexual relationships are about the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not calling you sexist. I think you are a wonderfully compassionate and aware individual. However, I do think that you (and surely I, as well) have absorbed sexist attitudes that are everpresent in our society. I think that these biases and attitudes are ultimately more detrimental - mostly because we are so unaware of them and thus find it difficult to compensate for them - than are explicit but nevertheless innocent sexualizing of males or females.