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? — Outlander

It's a disservice, irrelevant, and an insult. Again, it's like telling a gay couple to hide their affection in public because it will stop them from being harassed by homophobes.

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. — Outlander

I'm not referring to telling people not to get deliriously drunk. That's just common sense health advise. I'm referring to telling people to dress conservatively.

While that's a good approach in principle, it maybe too idealistic. Many women (particularly a so-called career woman), would more often than not complain 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). — 3017amen

It might be. To be honest, I didn’t write this with a workplace situation in mind at all, so I can see how it could backfire in that case. It depends on how you approach it, I suppose. Work situations are such politically-charged environments. “I’m curious as to why you chose to wear this particular outfit today” seems harmless enough.

My point was that you cannot assume a woman’s intentions purely by the way she’s dressed.

My question to women out there, regarding the OP, is I often wondered about this disjuncture. An 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. In other words, they are not concerned with the visual aspect like they say men are; they will sleep with unattractive men. And that suggests they like sex more than some men. — 3017amen

I think saying ‘men are too visual’ is not quite getting at the issue. Most women are looking for a sexual partner - not sex, per say.

As a woman, I am drawn to visual appealing men, but personally I’ve found physical attraction or chemistry to be insufficient for a satisfying sexual encounter. Good looks might get my attention in a highly competitive environment - particularly if my main aim is just a sexual partner - but honestly, if you can demonstrate a genuine interest in who I am as a thinking, feeling human being, then I’m not going to write you off based on your looks - that’s rare enough in the singles game. Unassuming charm, a quick intellect and courage will always get my attention, but it isn’t all that difficult to spot the guys who are only interested in ‘closing the deal’ if you’re paying attention. That’s not to say I won’t go for the good-looking player if I’m just after an ego boost, but a fat ugly guy won’t get away with the same slick, shallow moves even if I’m desperate, I’m afraid. They’re unlikely to be too concerned with my satisfaction, either way.

So when they say ‘men are too visual’, what women could mean is that men don’t seem to be after much more than sex plus the visual - a partner isn’t a requirement for a satisfying sexual encounter.

When I dress to look good I don't want to be treated as a disposable dildo. I certainly want to attract women but to think that that amounts to the desire to be objectified is patently false. — Michael

Ya gotta be shitting me, Mike. Have things really changed that much?

I'm gonna be 84 in a few weeks, so this is mostly academic at this point, but not too many years ago, my aim in life was to find as many women as possible who would treat me as a disposable dildo. I especially liked any woman who would fuck me sore...and then, shortly after both having our fill, make an excuse to leave. Saved me the trouble of thinking up a reason for asking them to leave.

Let me tell you a joke, mate. A homophobe, an Islamaphobe, an Islamist, a gay man with a scar under his left eye from persecution, and a Christian walk into a bar. The first two insult the gay man. The second and third start to get into it. The Christian tells them to calm down some. Later, the first and third take the gay man up to the roof to throw him off it. The second and the Christian go up to stop it while the second says "I told you so". The first and third push him off but being so drunk they forgot they were only on the third story. The second and the Christian, in their drunken state take the first and third to the top and throw the remaining off. The Christian converts the first one and they team up to fight Christianophobia in the Middle East. The two make it far in politics yet are discovered when they realize the man who got them where they were, after taking off his mask was the gay man from the bar. They are led to be beheaded. The two Christians are about to be beheaded when a stranger comes up and shouts "Stop. By order of the Emir!" The two Christians turn to see a man dressed in royal robes who's head is cloaked, save for one view of a small scar. They are allowed to return home and the former dictatorship is now a democracy, where no man is persecuted due to his action.

Far from a joke, friend. It's happening as we speak.

but honestly, if you can demonstrate a genuine interest in who I am as a thinking, feeling human being, then I’m not going to write you off based on your looks - that’s rare enough in the singles game. Unassuming charm, a quick intellect and courage will always get my attention, but it isn’t all that difficult to spot the guys who are only interested in ‘closing the deal’ if you’re paying attention. — Possibility

Do you care if the guy is successfully putting on caring and flirting as a performance? This is something I've never gotten my head around. The hetero male flirting for casual sex metagame seems to me all about adaptively signalling caring and interest as well as desire. Like - would you see it as a transgression if they're putting on a performance like that? Or is it an acceptable risk/otherwise fine for you as part of the social rituals that mediate casual sex?

It might seem like an obscure question, but I've had quite a few very candid discussions with guys on their casual sex flirting strategies, and they're all about trying to signal interest and generate connection regardless of whether they really give a damn or not. Perhaps I am strange in finding this extremely uncomfortable, it seems deeply transgressive to me.

How do both men and women escape that? — 3017amen

It's quite possible to feel desire or attraction for a person without objectifying them. There's a difference between a thing and a person, and no great effort is required to know the difference. I think that the difference is known even by those who objectify another, but they are so completely selfish and concerned to pleasure themselves that they ignore the difference. We can recognize this is a defect, a weakness, and overcome it. We take sex far too seriously.

:sweat:

:clap:

:smirk:

:up:

My point was that you cannot assume a woman’s intentions purely by the way she’s dressed. — Possibility

For the most part , I respectfully disagree. If a man looks like a pimp, he just might be a pimp. If he looks like a football player, wrestler, musician, doctor...ad nauseum...you get the idea. A person's attire tells a lot about them.

I didn’t write this with a workplace situation in mind at all, — Possibility

Perhaps I meet too many angry women (or man hater's not sure) but even in social environments, asking those kinds of questions, to a woman, unfortunately is not received well. People [women] have a hard time with the truth. I mean, we all want transparency, honestly, and all the rest, but many folks can't handle what they ask for...why is that?

but a fat ugly guy won’t get away with the same slick, shallow moves even if I’m desperate, I’m afraid. Most women are looking for a sexual partner - not sex, per say. — Possibility

I'm just a bit confused there, can you explain that distinction a little better? On the one hand, you seem to be saying looks don't matter, then on the other you seem to care. For example, when you say a fat ugly guy gets different treatment, you are saying that appearances actually do matter, no?

a partner isn’t a requirement for a satisfying sexual encounter. — Possibility

I think a good starting point would be your definition of 'a partner'. Is it not sex and companionship?Now, if all you are talking about is a guy who is considerate, kind, caring, intelligent, mature, that's all common sense stuff. We're adults here.

I know many women who've told me if the sex ain't good, they walk! Similarly, I can't imagine them even considering a sex partner who is unappealing. My point is, how do we escape objectification in a world of objectivity?

It's quite possible to feel desire or attraction for a person without objectifying them. There's a difference between a thing and a person, and no great effort is required to know the difference. I think that the difference is known even by those who objectify another, but they are so completely selfish and concerned to pleasure themselves that they ignore the difference. We can recognize this is a defect, a weakness, and overcome it. We take sex far too seriously. — Ciceronianus the White

Really, can you explain that one? Think of it this way, when you go on a dating site, many if not all will say something like 'if you have no picture, I won't respond'. Why is that, I wonder?

Are men and women shallow? For instance, if you were a pen pal with someone for a year, and really connected with them intellectually and spiritually, but when you met them they were not what you expected (or whatever else was wrong with them physically or chemistry-wise) would you still be attracted to them?

Women want to have it both ways - make men desire them as objects (of sex) but not make men think of them as objects (of sex). — TheMadFoolWhat'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

180!

Are you joking?

I've never been able to really live with them or without them — 180 Proof

Why is that?

All happiness or unhappiness solely depends upon the quality of the object to which we are attached by love." ~Benny Spinoza — 180 Proof

Does that mean one can love a car, dog, house, or any other physically pleasing thing?

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? — Michael

But it isn't necessarily that kind of framing. Locking your car/bike/house makes you a less likely victim of theft, even though the responsibility would be entirely the thief's. Since presumably you don't find it a disservice to point out that sort of thing, how can you tell what the intended framing is when someone points out increased risk due to some other form of acceptable behavior?

As far as I can tell, this particular question of how sexual assault correlates with victim behavior tends to be one where people see only the framing they want to see. You seemed to see the framing that anyone pointing out a statistical connection between behavior and likelihood of being victimized is shifting part of the blame on victims, whereas someone else will see the framing that even obvious attempts to shift blame on victims are just genuine concern.

P.S. I see no reason to assume that skimpy clothing as such increases risk, at least where I'm from (obviously, in some other parts of the world it definitely would). Heavy intoxication clearly seems to.

Are you joking? — 3017amen

Well, even my "jokes" are serious.

Why is that?

Ask any woman.

Does that mean one can love a car, dog, house, or any other physically pleasing thing?

... rather than a "thing" that's not "physically pleasing"? or a "physically pleasing" no-thing? :roll:

Really, can you explain that one? Think of it this way, when you go on a dating site, many if not all will say something like 'if you have no picture, I won't respond'. Why is that, I wonder? — 3017amen

I'm not sure, but I don't think it follows from the fact that we want to see what someone looks like that we objectify them. As far as I know, there's nothing wrong with wanting to know how someone else looks. Something more would be needed to treat someone as a mere object.

Are men and women shallow? For instance, if you were a pen pal with someone for a year, and really connected with them intellectually and spiritually, but when you met them they were not what you expected (or whatever else was wrong with them physically or chemistry-wise) would you still be attracted to them? — 3017amen

I'm not sure you're addressing objectification. I don't think anyone is obligated to find someone attractive. Say you aren't and decide no sexual relationship is possible. You can still treat someone with respect, and value them as having intellectual and spiritual aspects your find sympathetic. The fact you find someone attractive or unattractive has nothing to do with objectification, in my mind. How you treat someone does.

You recognise that someone being attractive, wearing suggestive clothing or acting provocatively does not mean someone is there to fulfil your sexual desires. When you are relating to people, you understand that sexual relations and appearance are not defined by whether someone feels attraction, but by whether the other person wants to be invoved.

People do not objectify themsleves. Not even when they're writhing around naked in front of a crowd. The supposition they must be a sexual object come from the watching crowds. Watchers are the ones who suppose whatever an attractive person does makes them available for sex. They are the ones who decide to treat attractive people like they don't have their own wishes or personhood. Objectification is not in feeling someone is attractive or a person wearing little, it's in supposing someone to be there for one's sexual desire just because they exist.

Thanks for your replies. This is a fascinating subject but I only have time for a couple of quick true or false sound bites. And will resume discussion tomorrow if that's okay. Accordingly, an in the meantime consider the following:

1.Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it.

2. Consider the executive career woman who finds a well-dressed man attractive. The man knows that his attire, as well as his good looks and physique, are appealing to women. Further his self-esteem is such that not only does he respect himself enough to stay healthy and fit but he also respects other women who do the same.

And so back to the career woman who finds this particular male attractive. Does she find him attractive as a potential sex partner? Does she find him attractive as a potential romance? If so, is not one of the components of love what they call, romantic love, and is that not based on objectification?

3. From a perspective of existential phenomenology and the human condition, we have the dynamic of subject-object. From this perspective, morals and ethics (and logic) are not considered in the phenomenon of romance. Even more so, in the attachment theory; baby sees Mom, Mom leaves the room, baby cries. The object known as the mother has left the baby's sight. The ideal object is that which is being perceived. How important is the object being perceived?

4. In the philosophy of aesthetics, how shall we parse the differences between the appreciation of object's beauty and the objectification of same, excluding the implications of deleterious moral and ethical behavior?

I'm trying to remove the psychological component of objectification, and instead, trying to shed light on the nature of the phenomenal experience, including the existential component that we seemingly cannot escape. Also, I realize this may be hard to do since the concept of objective beauty is tantamount to one's well-being. I submit that the definition of objectification has more implications...

People do not objectify themsleves. Not even when they're writhing around naked in front of a crowd. The supposition they must be a sexual object come from the watching crowd — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, I am back :gasp: Are you certain about those things? For one, you appear to be suggesting that women and men do not care about their bodies enough to purchase flattering clothing, swimsuits, cosmetics, hair dyes, tattoos, shoes, mirrors, exercise equipment (gyms), and all the rest. And how would you know what it's like to be in a nudist colony (I have)?

Assuming you're woman, are you in denial of your own sexuality? Do you not consider yourself a (desired) sexual being? ( I consider myself, in part, a sexual being.)

Forgive me for the absurdity of such rhetorical questions, but there seems to be some old paradigms at work here...

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. — Ciceronianus the White

Not at all defending Schopenhauer's behavior, but this story always makes me chuckle just because of how ridiculous and petty it is.

Perhaps I am strange in finding this extremely uncomfortable, it seems deeply transgressive to me. — fdrake

I find it uncomfortable as well. Sex without genuine connection seems to me like masturbating with someone else's body. You pretend to care so that you can use someone else.

And to know that another person doesn't care about you beyond your appearance, and to be okay with that, makes it sound like you don't really care about yourself.

I find it uncomfortable as well. Sex without genuine connection seems to me like masturbating with someone else's body. You pretend to care so that you can use someone else.

And to know that another person doesn't care about you beyond your appearance, and to be okay with that, makes it sound like you don't really care about yourself — darthbarracuda

A sad and unimaginative view. The worst thing is that you move from personal discomfort so easily into moral condemnation.

People like to have sex and they play games around that. If both parties are playing the game, it's a form of relating to someone as a person, not merely using someone as a means or treating them as an object.

It's more like a dance. A dance is not made up of truthful statements and there's no reason flirting should be either, just because it happens partly in language.

If both parties are playing the game, it's a form of relating to someone as a person, not merely using someone as a means or treating them as an object. — jamalrob

I think that is true, what makes me uncomfortable are situations where one person is signalling that they are "connected" for the sole purposes of getting sex, and the other is unaware that their game partner is using it simply as a strategy to obtain casual sex. I believe that's a way of not playing the same game.

I don't know how common it really is, or whether the Connection Flirting Script is just seen as part of the game.

I find it uncomfortable as well. Sex without genuine connection seems to me like masturbating with someone else's body. You pretend to care so that you can use someone else.

And to know that another person doesn't care about you beyond your appearance, and to be okay with that, makes it sound like you don't really care about yourself. — darthbarracuda

It can be uncomfortable for you and even personally wrong, but some people want causal sex, and that's fine for them. Or at least, it's for them to determine. It's too easy for society to want to go the moral condemnation route.

Fair enough.

But I don't even think it's clear how to distinguish genuine from fake interest. In performing a connection, a connection is made, I think. Often.

A person who does not have a deficiency of self-esteem will require that objectification not be the only form of attention they receive. It is not nourishing enough to be told they are physically attractive; more is needed for any of it to mean anything. Nor will they consider deception as anything but a disregard of their dignity.

If sex doesn't mean anything, then it's masturbation. If it does by itself, then it's cheap validation.

This is only a moral condemnation of the behavior of those who deceive unsuspecting people, or deliberately prey upon those with low self-esteem, in order to have sex with them. Otherwise it's a statement of my thoughts and feelings on the matter, based on introspection, personal experience and observation of other people.

Deceiving and hurting unsuspecting people is bad, sure. I was making the point that lies and manipulation are most often just part and parcel of flirtation and casual sex, entered into willingly by both parties, and thus not bad.

If sex doesn't mean anything, then it's masturbation. — darthbarracuda

For you it might be. For others, casual sex is most often a much more complex and interesting connection between two people than mere masturbation, no matter how brief the encounter.

For you it might be. For others, casual sex is most often a much more complex and interesting connection between two people than mere masturbation, no matter how brief the encounter. — jamalrob

I stated that meaningless sex is equivalent to masturbation. I did not state that casual sex is equivalent to masturbation.

Having sex with someone can be extraordinarily intimate and meaningful, even if it doesn't carry long-term commitment. As you said, casual sex can be a much more complex and interesting than mere masturbation.

My point was the difference between using your hand and using a person is minimal when there isn't any care involved.

Yes, I considered addressing what you meant by meaningless sex, but decided to assume you were equating it with casual sex.

Well we're in agreement then. But I suspect you have a higher bar for what you consider to be a "genuine connection".

... edited.

was making the point that lies and manipulation are most often just part and parcel of flirtation and casual sex, entered into willingly by both parties, and thus not bad. — jamalrob

Yep. Not sure what all the fuss is about. What did we do when we were in college; ate, slept, studied and had sex (I didn't party much).

I remember one of my girlfriend's telling me..."what relationship, we're in college!".

So let's face it, you get men and women all together in one big building, and sooner or later somebody's going to start fucking.

Is that objectification I wonder?

For you it might be. For others, casual sex is most often a much more complex and interesting connection between two people than mere masturbation, no matter how brief the encounter. — jamalrob

:up:

But I don't even think it's clear how to distinguish genuine from fake interest. In performing a connection, a connection is made, I think. Often. — jamalrob

I don't wanna draw a line for other people regarding what consentual games are played. They seem to enjoy it. There's even some nice moments of erogenous surprise in flirting with strangers - I miss those, all too rare to be surprised by joy (hashtag CS Lewis) and genital sensation. Creating desire and having desire created in yourself is a lot of fun.

Do you care if the guy is successfully putting on caring and flirting as a performance? This is something I've never gotten my head around. The hetero male flirting for casual sex metagame seems to me all about adaptively signalling caring and interest as well as desire. Like - would you see it as a transgression if they're putting on a performance like that? Or is it an acceptable risk/otherwise fine for you as part of the social rituals that mediate casual sex?

It might seem like an obscure question, but I've had quite a few very candid discussions with guys on their casual sex flirting strategies, and they're all about trying to signal interest and generate connection regardless of whether they really give a damn or not. Perhaps I am strange in finding this extremely uncomfortable, it seems deeply transgressive to me. — fdrake

It’s actually a good question. Casual sex for the most part is a mutual fantasy - it’s a dance of cognitive dissonance. He pretends he’s interested in a relationship beyond sex, and I pretend not to notice the pretense. When I stretch and test his performance, though, his true colours will show through under the surface. From this I can decide whether I think the game is worth playing out, whether I buys into the fantasy, or not.

Because there’s another layer many people don’t realise. Even in casual sex, a woman wants a sexual partner, if only for that encounter, whether she realises it or not. So the real signal isn’t just about acknowledging that she has a life - a career, interests, hobbies, etc - it’s about acknowledging that she has a choice, in this moment and the next one. This is difficult to fake. Some men wouldn’t even see her as an agent, let alone a partner in the encounter. Their aim is to gradually eliminate or obscure her options. That’s the transgression. It’s a danger that women are not always prepared for, and that men may not even realise is a problem - until they’re accused of rape.

Let me ask you: do you believe that there’s a point (which may vary between men) at which a sexual act is a foregone conclusion? Can you assume that a woman commits irreversibly to the act at some point? Because most women can talk themselves into and out of an encounter several times, at any point throughout, depending on his behaviour. What she wants from him is not just sex, but human interaction, so if she starts to feel like she should have more of a choice in how it goes then she’s going to want out. It seems to me that this is where the main issue lies, but she often realises this only when she has poor choices left.

So, for me at least, there’s a difference between not giving a damn about an extended relationship and not giving a damn about your sexual partner as a fellow human being with agency. I enjoy the pretense of a ‘possible’ romantic connection as much as the next girl, but underneath that is the real question: Is he respecting my freedom to choose?