Good. Just be aware that many who do say that pave the way for doing so by saying things like you've been saying.

The problem is the wrong kinds of attention... not who's being paid the wrong kinds of attention to and for whatever reason those attention givers rationalize their own actions to themselves...

"Nice ass!"

"Fuck off you jerk!"

"What else did she expect wearing clothes that exposed her butt cheeks?" — creativesoul

The things I've been saying are meant as more of an explanation than as a justification for the objectitication of women (by men). Do you see any problems with that?

Women aren't stupid. They are very intuitive with regard to other people — Gregory

:point:

"Women are crazy because men are stupid" about women, Thus Spoke George Carlin! — 180 Proof

What's wrong with that? Just because you - many (most?) hetero-males - can't handle that doesn't entail it's wrong or that a woman shouldn't have her dawgs & her dignity too. :smirk: — 180 Proof

What does the underlined bit imply? In other words, if it were a premise what does it entail?

First, typo - I forgot to place a comma after "that". Second, by "that" I'm referring to what you wrote about women "having it both ways ..."; I believe, from decades of observation of myself as well as other men, that the vaunted 'male ego' is fraught with trepidation whenever females assert their prerogatives or flaunt their own double standards. The underlined "premise" implies, IMHO, male weakness - panic - when confronted by the subliminal power of 'the feminine' tease: desire me AND respect me, baby; or fuck off!

"Don't forget the whip!" :sweat:


:point: 'We're free to objectify ourselves without licensing you to objectify us.'

(Re: Coopting social-sexual alienation ... the way we blacks coopt racial slurs in order to reclaim (some of the) power to hurt from racists).

desire me AND respect me, baby; or fuck off. "Don't forget the whip!" — 180 Proof

:love:

I think a certain amount of physicality and therefore objectification is inherent to sexual attraction and sexual activity but no one wants to be just an object. So we all want to be physically desirable but we also want to be treated as a entire person. I admit I have not given it a great deal of thought.

Make no mistake: Women do not clothe themselves for the purpose of pleasing men. Women choose their attire in direct competition with (and for) other women. It is precisely how we men choose our sports cars. We do it to impress other men, not for the purpose of attracting women.

So, please leave men out of the “The Objectification Of Women” equation. We’ve got nothing to do with it.

'We're free to objectify ourselves without licensing you to objectify us.'

(Re: Coopting social-sexual alienation ... the way we blacks coopt racial slurs in order to reclaim (some of the) power to hurt from racists). — 180 Proof

Really insightful point, made me think. Would you expect this coopting to disappear if racism/sexism disappeared?

I believe, from decades of observation of myself as well as other men, that the vaunted 'male ego' is fraught with trepidation whenever females assert their prerogatives or flaunt their double standards. — 180 Proof

I'm going to play detective here and the first thing I notice is despite your highly favorable point of view on women on this issue, you still couldn't avoid using a decidedly negative phrase "double standards". What would you think of a person being showered with accolades by an ardent supporter and you find this hapless fan couldn't avoid using the term "jerk"? If the best of your supporters must end up, is forced to, say something bad about you, shouldn't you be worried?

We're free to objectify ourselves without licensing you to objectify us.' — 180 Proof

How does one objectify oneself?

I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool

Make no mistake: Women do not clothe themselves for the purpose of pleasing men. Women choose their attire in direct competition with (and for) other women. It is precisely how we men choose our sports cars. We do it to impress other men, not for the purpose of attracting women.

So, please leave men out of the “The Objectification Of Women” equation. We’ve got nothing to do with it. — Hot Potato

Women clothe themselves a particular way for a wide range of reasons, including (but not confined to): competing with other women for social or political status, for men’s (or a particular man’s) attention, for any attention at all; pleasing a particular man, men in general, her friends, her family members or social group, her boss, OR herself; as well as for comfort, for pure functionality, or to help her feel like more than part of the furniture, a slave, a piece of dirt, invisible or whatever she happens to have been feeling like too much lately.

Here’s a tip: before making generalised assumptions about a woman’s intention in wearing a low-cut neckline or a mini-skirt, you could take the time to ASK her if there’s a particular reason why she wore that outfit today - and then LISTEN to what she has to say. She might be surprised that someone took the trouble to recognise a thinking, feeling person with agency underneath the fabric, skin and shape, but aside from ‘I don’t know’, you will probably never get the same response twice.

Because they happen to be human beings, as diverse and unpredictable in their thinking, knowledge and experiences as men, despite how they look. Surprise.

You can't control how people look at you or what they care about, objectification is a bad term, it doesn't really draw a clear line about what's appropriate, reasonable fair, etc. That line still exists but objectification is just kind of a nonsense term in my view. Being enamoured with someone's appearance doesn't require you to then feign interest in who they are as a person any more than not having any interest in their appearance does.

Here’s a tip: before making generalised assumptions about a woman’s intention in wearing a low-cut neckline or a mini-skirt, you could take the time to ASK her if there’s a particular reason why she wore that outfit today - and then LISTEN to what she has to say. ..... — Possibility

If women (in general) were individualistic then asking them would be good advice. But women are flock creatures, who not only follow the trend found in magazines and adapted by their friends but will also tell you, "I dress for myself" which cannot be relied upon by any means what-so-ever. If you can be a silly-cone boob, fake eyelash, plucked and tattooed eyebrow, outrageously coloured eye-shadow, plastic fingernails, bright lipstick, apologist then help yourself. But tell me .... how do you justify high-heeled shoes that are (for all purposes) voluntary stumble-handicaps?

:point:

If women (in general) were individualistic then asking them would be good advice. But women are flock creatures, who not only follow the trend found in magazines and adapted by their friends but will also tell you, "I dress for myself" which cannot be relied upon by any means what-so-ever. If you can be a silly-cone boob, fake eyelash, plucked and tattooed eyebrow, outrageously coloured eye-shadow, plastic fingernails, bright lipstick, apologist then help yourself. But tell me .... how do you justify high-heeled shoes that are (for all purposes) voluntary stumble-handicaps? — Hot Potato

If I must say something in addition to the above then it's this: I agree with @180 Proof that women have the right to do anything with their bodies - dress in whatever way they wish included - and being scantily clad is not an invitation for all men to hit on them but, on most occasions, this kind of behavior is aimed specifically at a certain range of "clients" - men whom they desire and wish to forge a relationship with. I sympathize with women because they're like snipers, bringing their "big guns" to bear on a particular (kind of) guy, but they're forced to blow their cover and so become targets of "unwanted attention" from the "enemy".

If women (in general) were individualistic then asking them would be good advice. But women are flock creatures, who not only follow the trend found in magazines and adapted by their friends but will also tell you, "I dress for myself" which cannot be relied upon by any means what-so-ever. If you can be a silly-cone boob, fake eyelash, plucked and tattooed eyebrow, outrageously coloured eye-shadow, plastic fingernails, bright lipstick, apologist then help yourself. But tell me .... how do you justify high-heeled shoes that are (for all purposes) voluntary stumble-handicaps? — Hot Potato

Women in general are individuals who can and do think for themselves, and any suggestion that they are not is ridiculous. If some women choose to exaggerate certain features of their appearance because they can, that’s their choice, and not necessarily ‘flock’ behaviour. If they do so for someone else’s benefit, that is also their own choice, and no concern of yours. Men can be just as much slaves to trends or social pressure as women. It may not be so much in appearance as in their words and behaviour, but these can also have far more serious consequences than a twisted ankle or unwanted attention.

I don’t always dress for myself, but I find that it’s often a legitimate answer. I wear three-inch heels because I like the extra height they give me (I’m 5’3”), I like how much smaller my size 8 feet look in them, and I like the change in overall subjective experience they offer me: between a casual day, and a day in the office or a night out. Personally, though, if they’re not comfortable enough to wear all day/night, they’re not practical. But that’s just me: I don’t like to complicate things, and I’m not a details person - I don’t do fake eyelashes or plastic fingernails, and I can go for weeks without shaving my legs, but I do like to be creative with colour and shape.

Your response is silly by way of your statements, by way of your contradictions of those statements, and by way of absurd conclusions based upon assumptions. Furthermore, you insist on saying "it's their choice" and telling me it's "no concern of mine".
1. We are discussing "their choices" and how they come by those choices. That's what this discussion is all about.
2. It most certainly is "my concern" because (hello?) that's what this discussion is all about.

I presume, that to objectify is to disregard or discount the subjectivity of another. Consider, therefore how men might be objectified by each other. When I do not acknowledge the humanity of the store assistant, when the official is interested in my paperwork, not me, when the army does almost anything...

The more I consider, the more it appears that objectification is for most people the way they treat each other most of the time. And the way we treat ourselves. It has become normal.

This thread just reads like someone who is terrified of feminine sexuality. Anyone can want to have their brains fucked out of them without being only that. And anyone can want to have their brains fucked out of them without you being the one doing the fucking. If you have a problem with that, then that's entirely your problem, no one elses.

this kind of behavior is aimed specifically at a certain range of "clients" - men whom they desire and wish to forge a relationship with — TheMadFool

So this is a firmer statement of intent than the original question, which asked to resolve a perceived discrepancy between how women describe their clothing choices and how some of those clothing choices suggest a more universal intent.

Out of interest, is this a binary phenomenon in your mind? When a woman wears a miniskirt to a bar, she's definitely straight and looking to get hit on by a man, correct? And if she wears a microskirt, same is surely true. If she wears a floor-length skirt, she wants to be left alone? What about a knee-length skirt? Is that still a deliberate provocation as it was to Cole Porter, or does that put her in the leave-me-alone category? Or is it a continuum: the shorter the skirt, the more the woman wants to be hit on, so a knee-length skirt denotes being open to a little flirtation with a small chance of sex, while a microskirt denotes an anybody-anytime-right-here-on-the-counter intent?

So this is a firmer statement of intent than the original question, which asked to resolve a perceived discrepancy between how women describe their clothing choices and how some of those clothing choices suggest a more universal intent.

Out of interest, is this a binary phenomenon in your mind? When a woman wears a miniskirt to a bar, she's definitely straight and looking to get hit on by a man, correct? And if she wears a microskirt, same is surely true. If she wears a floor-length skirt, she wants to be left alone? What about a knee-length skirt? Is that still a deliberate provocation as it was to Cole Porter, or does that put her in the leave-me-alone category? Or is it a continuum: the shorter the skirt, the more the woman wants to be hit on, so a knee-length skirt denotes being open to a little flirtation with a small chance of sex, while a microskirt denotes an anybody-anytime-right-here-on-the-counter intent? — Kenosha Kid

:up:

Well, you don't seem to need my help; you've single-handedly come up with a near-scientific hypothesis on the issue. I appreciate your effort and ingenuity but, if you must know, I'd let time be the judge. I guess it's going to be a long wait...

If I must say something in addition to the above then it's this: I agree with 180 Proof that women have the right to do anything with their bodies - dress in whatever way they wish included - and being scantily clad is not an invitation for all men to hit on them but, on most occasions, this kind of behavior is aimed specifically at a certain range of "clients" - men whom they desire and wish to forge a relationship with. I sympathize with women because they're like snipers, aiming for a particular guy, but they're forced to blow their cover and so become targets of unwanted attention from the "enemy". — TheMadFool

To be honest, I’m not convinced that women who rail against objectification by men, and women who dress specifically to be hit on - even by only certain types of men - are the same individuals. My issue with your OP was that it presumes they are.

Having said that, a woman should be free to show some skin without being held responsible for ‘sending the wrong signals’ to men in whom she has no interest. If you hit on a woman and she brushes you off, the humiliation you might feel is not her fault for ‘putting it out there’. Even if her intention is to be noticed, she’s just as free to be choosy as if she had dressed modestly.

The purpose of an object’s particular feature is presumed to be the anticipated value for the observer, and no-one need question the truth of this. The purpose of an agent’s particular behaviour is a different story.

Well, you don't seem to need my help; you've single-handedly come up with a near-scientific hypothesis on the issue. I appreciate your effort and ingenuity but, if you must know, I'd let time be the judge. I guess it's going to be a long wait... — TheMadFool

Yeah, I apologise for the ridiculous tone of the questions. In my defense, they are logical questions to ask given the assumption they ridiculed.

I would say, and I don't think this is something you'll accept: time is judging already. The very assumption -- that a woman wears e.g. a miniskirt because she wants men to sexually solicit her -- that gives rise to these mysteries is, quite rightly, putting some of its extreme proponents in prison or firing them from their jobs. There will be a time when every police officer who laughs off a miniskirted woman complaining about sexual assault will be sacked, maybe even a time when they couldn't get hired in the first place. Society has inherited such individuals and the protectionism around them from a more primitive time in which straight white men had the power to out-group just about everybody. It doesn't tolerate them though, that is the trend already. Time has judged, is judging, and will judge us further in retrospect.That's a third grounds you have to reject your own assumption.

Having said that, a woman should be free to show some skin without being held responsible for ‘sending the wrong signals’ to men in whom she has no interest. If you hit on a woman and she brushes you off, the humiliation you might feel is not her fault for ‘putting it out there’. Even if her intention is to be noticed, she’s just as free to be choosy as if she had dressed modestly. — Possibility

Further, if three of your mates have hit on a woman and she's brushed them off with diminishing temper, don't be a dick by trying your luck. There's a very strong signal she's sending out: leave me alone! Pointing at her plunging neckline and pretending that's the only signal that matters is not a defence. You know what you're doing, and you know your rationalisation is BS.

Sure, there are people in this world who will harm others for no good reason — creativesoul

Like it'd be some epic lifelong journey to find some or something! :rofl:
On that note, sure there are fish in the ocean.

People, especially young ones, mentally and otherwise, crave to be desired. Especially when one's early home life did not facilitate this. It's natural.

Somewhat off topic but just to say so, my views on modesty in attire are correlated to what is conducive to a strong social fabric. Married/non-single women don't need to be on Instagram or in public bearing just about it all for the world to see. It's annoying. More poignantly, modest dress is required in the workplace or productivity will suffer. That is a fact.

None of this was my point however, my point is, in a world where men do kill other men and rape women, while we'd both agree saying a crime victim deserved it is brash and vile, if it is a fact, and I believe it is, that a woman wearing next to nothing and becoming deliriously intoxicated who becomes sexually assaulted would not have been if they were dressed modestly and sober, and if a man who states again what I am arguing is a fact. That root fact essentially being "less women will become sexually assaulted if dressed modestly and remain sober". If it is a fact and by communicating it to multiple people less women become victims of sexual assault... I ask you. Is that a service or a disservice?

There is no church state now. No moral guidelines for raising children. If people want to embrace the worst traits of humanity to get ahead they will. It is simply the world we live in. So again. Is such a statement that prevents countless sexual assaults a service or a disservice?

That root fact essentially being "less women will become sexually assaulted if dressed modestly and remain sober". If it is a fact and by communicating it to multiple people less women become victims of sexual assault... I ask you. Is that a service or a disservice?

There is no church state now. No moral guidelines for raising children. If people want to embrace the worst traits of humanity to get ahead they will. It is simply the world we live in. So again. Is such a statement that prevents countless sexual assaults a service or a disservice? — Outlander

It's a disservice, as you're framing it as the victim's responsibility to refrain from acceptable behaviour as a means to lessen the chance of being victimized rather than the perpetrator's responsibility to refrain from unacceptable and criminal behaviour.

Should a gay couple refrain from holding hands in public where there are known to be homophobes? Should a Muslim family refrain from practicing their religion where there are known to be Islamophobes?

That gay people are less likely to be victimized if they stop being gay (or stop showing themselves to be gay) or that Muslims are less likely to be victimized if they stop being Muslim (or stop showing themselves to be Muslim) is irrelevant and an insult to suggest, even if true. And that women are less likely to be victimized if they dress more conservatively is irrelevant and an insult to suggest, even if true. The responsibility is entirely on the homophobes, the Islamophobes, and the rapists.

It also happens to be entirely false that women dressed 'provocatively' suffer higher rates of sexual assault. Those who carry out such assaults look for women who are weak and vulnerable - which is why elderly women, girls under 12, and women who know their attackers make up among the largest demographic of sexual assault victims. Sexual assault is about power and opportunity, not looks. People like @Outlander need to stop peddling this rubbish misinformation.

you could take the time to ASK her if there’s a particular reason why she wore that outfit today - and then LISTEN to what she has to say. — Possibility

Possibility!

While that's a good approach in principle, it may be too idealistic. Many women (particularly a so-called career woman), would more often than not have complained to HR/management and thus would take exception to a MAN asking her that question. She would get offended and defensive (probably because she's insecure deep down and the man was simply speaking the truth).

My question to women out there, regarding the OP is, I often wondered about this disjuncture. And that relates to aesthetics. There is this old paradigm that used to say 'men are too visual' . Well, I think some women are kidding themselves for the following reasons:

1. Most women want an attractive man that they feel chemistry with physically, in order to have sex.

If that were not true, then the following could exist:

1.a: Some women will sleep/marry a fat ugly guy who has lots of money which in turn suggests they are not interested in sex, but security.
1.b: Some women don't care about the physicality piece, and they like sex for the sake of sex, and as long as the penis gets hard, they are good to go. (And that they want to have kids for selfish reasons.) In other words, they are not concerned with the visual aspect like they say men are; they will sleep with unattractive men for different reasons. And that also might suggest they like sex more than some men. ( And that they are less visual than men.)

Now, I haven't brought up the mind and spirit piece of the mind, body, spirit connection, which in turn is a whole 'nother subject. Let's just say I've met plenty of women who are introverted and who are not intellectual or spiritual themselves. They seemingly don't really care; they want good sex. And as long as the basic existential needs are met, they are fine with that. And so I find myself asking, if they are not that concerned with the intellectual/spiritual connection, then what... ?

Taking that yet another step forward, consider the dynamic between a man and a women as they age. What kind of connection or chemistry will provide for a lasting relationship(?). What does it look like when everything sags and is wrinkly? Meaning, if existentially, men and women just want sex (procreation and sex for fun) and companionship, then why should one be all that concerned with anything else? What is chemistry? Is it aesthetic/visual? What happens when it's gone?

I'm thinking that the visual piece weighs quite heavily in the decision making process nonetheless. How can we escape it? Should women just marry for money, security and/or to mitigate aloneness (then have affairs with attractive men on the side to satisfy their fantasies)? (Actually, some men marry to mitigate aloneness, then have affairs to meet their other needs.)

Finally, then there are those like Schopenhauer who said without sex, men and women would hate each other(?).

Thoughts?

Schopenhauer who said without sex, men and women would hate each other(?). — 3017amen

I wonder if he said this before or after he pushed a woman down a stairway because he thought she was too loud. Later, he gloated when she died thereby ending his obligation to pay damages for her injuries.
Charming fellow, Schopenhauer.

Good point, pretty despicable behavior. Maybe he was a sexually frustrated male...

People, especially young ones, mentally and otherwise, crave to be desired. Especially when one's early home life did not facilitate this. It's natural. — Outlander

And here I thought Epstein hung himself in jail... yet he lives in your words, along with all the other sick fuckers in this world who do shit like he did.

if it is a fact, and I believe it is, that a woman wearing next to nothing and becoming deliriously intoxicated who becomes sexually assaulted would not have been if they were dressed modestly and sober, and if a man who states again what I am arguing is a fact. That root fact essentially being "less women will become sexually assaulted if dressed modestly and remain sober". If it is a fact and by communicating it to multiple people less women become victims of sexual assault... I ask you. Is that a service or a disservice? — Outlander

Michael and Street covered this...

There were no less rapes happening before scantily clad dress and women drinking was acceptable.

What poor, dumb animals we men must be if the sight of female flesh so incapacitates our intelligence that we're compelled to objectify women because they wear certain clothing.

What poor, dumb animals we men must be if the sight of female flesh so incapacitates our intelligence that we're compelled to objectify women because they wear certain clothing. — Ciceronianus the White

How do both men and women escape that?

And that women are less likely to be victimized if they dress more conservatively is irrelevant and an insult to suggest, even if true. — Michael

Even if true. Well. There we have it. Says who? You? A male? How omniscient of you. Well it appears even the best of us have some chauvinistic tendencies.

No. The criminal is always at fault and will receive due punishment no matter how hard they try to circumvent or obfuscate. Meanwhile. Can you wave a magic wand and turn all would be rapists into dust? Can you pass some law that pragmatically eliminates all rape? Unless the answer is yes the question remains the same. Does a statement that prevents sexual assault of women in the interim offer a service or a disservice? Do you still state that such a statement that prevents sexual assault is irrelevant and an insult? Bear in mind were also talking about the general non-binary concept of a sober person being less likely to be taken advantage of than a deliriously drunk person.