I don't think you are mistaken at all. I don't know about "objectifying", I don't believe it is happening to the extent that is being alleged, in any case. But I fully agree that it has something to do with fragile male egos. If something is aesthetically attractive then one should be able to say so, irrespective of whether it is the body of a woman, man, horse, dog, cat or anything. — Apollodorus

As a happily married woman, I like to be able to openly appreciate and encourage the care and effort another man has taken with his body and appearance without everyone making assumptions about my intentions. Among married women, we can (sometimes) discuss this quite openly, but we’re more careful in mixed company - someone is bound to make assumptions.

If you’ve ever witnessed a male revue, the married women there enjoy the freedom to openly and even actively appreciate the male form without being labelled a ‘whore’ based on assumed intentions. How we perceive the abandon with which they embrace this rare opportunity says more about how society imposes assumptions about our intentions in interacting with men, especially once we’ve been ‘claimed as property’, than about a woman’s marriage or real intentions toward the male forms on display.

Correct. I think human behavior is largely dictated by pressure from society. For instance, if a man is with a group of male friends and an attractive female happens to pass by, there is a tendency for everyone in the group to follow her with their gaze and even make comments about her looks. It is like a ritual that everyone feels obliged to observe even though they may not even think of doing it if they were on their own.

Obviously, this may occur more among men of college or university age than in other age groups but it starts fairly early and it becomes ingrained. So, group mentality and behavior certainly take over and determine how we act. Those who fail to comply with group behavior are regarded as "odd." This can reach absurd proportions in certain cultures to the extent that as a man you are virtually expected to have a number of female partners, even if you are married, to sort of "prove" that you are a man!

So, groups can allow freedom of expression, but in certain circumstances they may actually do the reverse and act in repressive ways. In any case, society and culture has a lot to do with how we act and even think and feel. And for some reason the female body tends to be the center of attention as exemplified by the growing trend for female pop singers to perform on stage in their underwear whereas males tend to cover up. Apparently, this is supposed to be an expression of "female empowerment", though it is rather difficult to follow the logic of it ....

I like the way you think. I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately society puts a lot of pressure on how women look. — Maximum7

I think we need to stop blaming ‘society’ for this, and recognise that we construct and reconstruct society in how we relate to each other. We need to reflect on how we each respond to a woman’s appearance, and ask ourselves why we ignore the woman in the room who doesn’t engage us visually, but not the men. Why does she have less value in an interaction that has nothing to do with sex? What would happen if we threw a little attention her way? How would our intentions toward her be assumed - and is that really a fair assumption?

I think most men have reduced their social interactions to a shorthand of cultural assumptions, many of which are woefully inaccurate, but can be contrived for effect. It’s such a limited view of their potential, like a low resolution image. Reality isn’t constructed from pixels. Most men as well as women are far more complex, capable and interesting than ‘society’ gives them credit for. But they’d rather be misunderstood than admit that they misunderstand.

Personally, I think the difference between the ‘male’ and ‘female’ gaze is more to do with dimensional awareness than gender. demonstrates a perspective of value/potential that transcends this gender distinction, and renders the ‘male/female’ labels inaccurate. Rather than reducing potential/value to a measurement/judgement of intentions, his gaze recognises the variability of intention on both sides of an interaction. Intersubjectivity need not assume a dominant perspective, or a culturally determined ‘view from nowhere’. Even sexual interactions are more rewarding when the genuine intentions of all parties are understood and integrated, rather than assumed. It’s less certain, sure, but more accurate, practically speaking.

And for some reason the female body tends to be the center of attention as exemplified by the growing trend for female pop singers to perform on stage in their underwear whereas males tend to cover up. Apparently, this is supposed to be an expression of "female empowerment", though it is rather difficult to follow the logic of it .... — Apollodorus

That’s because you don’t see her as an ‘angel’, let alone recognise that she may also be a ‘mother’. You also tend to block out the teams of male dancers around her that she bends to her will. You assume that her intention is to make herself available to you - that by writhing around in her underwear, she’s obviously asking for it.

But she’s willing to let you imagine that, because in reality (and with the money you dish out to feed your little fantasy) she has enough resources at her disposal to put you in the ground if you so much as speak to her in a way that isn’t in line with what she wants. Most women put themselves at risk of physical harm if they appear before men in their underwear and then have the audacity to say ‘no’. Why do you think that is?

Interesting perspective. However, personally, I don't assume anything about pop singers for the simple reason that I tend not to attend concerts or otherwise watch videos of them. But I do happen to accidentally come across programs or video clips on YouTube or TV. The only thing that crosses my mind on such occasions is that the singers in question are putting on a show that looks totally unconvincing and unappealing and, frankly, a waste of time to watch. And anyway, it's probably just a money-making enterprise with a political or cultural agenda.

In addition, the female performers do not always appear to be be "in charge" or "empowered" at all. In many cases, they seem to suggest the role of street girls whilst male singers appear in fur-coats, expensive cars, and exaggerated jewelry.

It may sound old-fashioned but that's one of the reasons why I very much prefer classical or traditional folk music .... :smile:

In addition, the female performers do not always appear to be be "in charge" or "empowered" at all. In many cases, they seem to suggest the role of street girls whilst male singers appear in fur-coats, expensive cars, and exaggerated jewelry. — Apollodorus

Hmmm...No, I don’t suppose they would appear that way to you - although it would be nice if you could entertain the possibility that a woman can be semi-naked and still in charge of her own body...

You’d assume it’s the case that a semi-naked man (unrestrained) is still very much in charge of his own body, why not a woman?

In my opinion, the men flaunting their monetary value in videoclips are mainly addressing racial empowerment, which is another issue.

:vomit: What a crock. I don’t even know where to start with that. It barely addresses the OP at all, let alone reality.

Personally I don’t see men as straight lines and angles at all, and I think that’s a rather limiting perspective that excludes more men than it describes. Plus, I find that men have the potential for some pretty impressive and even enjoyable arcs and curvature! — Possibility

:smile:

:rofl: Sorry
:rofl: :up:

I would love to surround myself with confident, awesome women who have an amazing sense of fashion because something that like speaks to her creativity and artistic eye. — K Turner

Do you find that such women are generally creative in other ways, like writing fiction or playing saxophone? Because otherwise that's rather a bootstrapped explanation.

Hope it’s ok posting this speaking of ‘alluring femaie forms’. Disregard the syrupy strings and ungainly session musicians. The singer is Ksenia Buzina, who I understand is a big star in Russia and China. She doesn’t have a lot of recorded output but find her unbelievably alluring.

from an arts perspective
check out cindy sherman, her art work addresses "he gaze" critically, too many postmod essays out there to quote, but the work speaks for itself

it would be nice if you could entertain the possibility that a woman can be semi-naked and still in charge of her own body... — Possibility

Well, I never said that she cannot be. What I am saying is that those shows do not have that sort of effect on me. If as you say, male viewers’ assumption is supposed to be that a singer’s intention is “to make herself available to you - that by writhing around in her underwear, she’s obviously asking for it,” then that is a total miss because it doesn’t work that way on me at all.

In fact, whenever I watch any of those video clips, which is literally for a few seconds as they pop up when I browse YouTube, the thoughts that come to my mind tend to be “this looks ridiculously fake,” “she/they are doing this for money,” “it’s in poor taste,” “unappealing,” “low-class,” etc.

I can imagine that some may find that sort of thing appealing or even “empowering,” but personally, I’m not into underwear and I find writhing and “twirking” on-stage in underwear simply off-putting, irrespective of the performers’ gender or political agenda. So, whatever the intention is (apart from making money out of a gullible audience), it’s got the opposite effect on me and they are wasting their time.

I think the whole concept of videos staged by clever record companies that manipulate, exploit, and fool the public for profit is wrong. I would rather watch something more traditional, more authentic, and more dignified, like Spanish flamenco, Irish or Greek dancing, or even ballet that at least has some artistic and cultural value.

Other than that, I tend to agree with @Wayfarer. Either someone is alluring or they are not. They don’t need to be in their underwear. :smile:

Because hairy hanging gonads aren't attractive to anyone. Let me summon a lady to confirm. — Hanover

<Insert hurl here>
AND a beautiful good morning to you too dear Hanny~ :flower:
It's not even 7am here and I can tell you that it's not an attractive sight.
Guys think about the time when you were a kid and either Dad or Grandpa bent over to get the newspaper. :scream:

I think the whole concept of videos staged by clever record companies that manipulate, exploit, and fool the public for profit is wrong. I would rather watch something more traditional, more authentic, and more dignified, like Spanish flamenco, Irish or Greek dancing, or even ballet that at least has some artistic and cultural value. — Apollodorus

Well la-di-da, :razz: , but seriously, people are fooled into believing that they enjoy something that they actually don’t enjoy?

Sometimes it's clearly the other way around:

Well, I never said that she cannot be. What I am saying is that those shows do not have that sort of effect on me. If as you say, male viewers’ assumption is supposed to be that a singer’s intention is “to make herself available to you - that by writhing around in her underwear, she’s obviously asking for it,” then that is a total miss because it doesn’t work that way on me at all. — Apollodorus

I think you’re missing the point, but I’ve probably contributed to that by my accusatory use of ‘you’, so I apologise. Only men who ARE attracted to these video clips (and I would say that most men are NOT) would see it this way - and it is supposed to be unconvincing as an allure to men. It forces intelligent men such as yourself to look away, recognising that she isn’t intending to be attractive, much less alluring, to you.

Because she’s not doing it for you or for any other men - she is expressing a potentiality that is denied to most women. So she’s doing it for women. We watch and admire the power she has to act this way without fear. We see that it is possible, and it empowers women and girls to argue against expectations that we behave and dress modestly so as not to inadvertently ‘invite’ men to attack us. That doesn’t mean I’m going to dance on the street in my underwear, but it’s important to recognise both that I CAN and that the fact that I’m afraid to is not because I’m a woman, but because there’s still a problem with how women are judged and valued.

Other than that, I tend to agree with Wayfarer. Either someone is alluring or they are not. They don’t need to be in their underwear. :smile: — Apollodorus

Agreed.

but seriously, people are fooled into believing that they enjoy something that they actually don’t enjoy? — praxis

I think that people can be conditioned to enjoy certain things as opposed to others. After all, we are influenced by group think and by the dominant mentality and culture of the society we live in.

It's a complex topic. In some important respects, women are commercialized because men rule the world. There's also the fact that, on average, men are physically stronger than women.

I've read comments about women's libido being equally strong as many males. If some women say this then I can't argue with that. From my observations, I would've thought than men have quite a high sex drive and some are willing to pay money for sex. Then again, given my Latin American perspective, there may be a lot of distortion in terms of the way I view this topic.

As for the general question, it may be a cop out, but I think biology is quite strong. There's also something about the female form that has been considered a paradigm for beauty in many cultures all over the world. This probably has to do with some aspect of our innate nature.

So for us as a species, it might be a fact that it's easier to appreciate female beauty.

:up:

Damn, I don't care if the Duck is male or female, those colours are gorgeous.

I think that people can be conditioned to enjoy certain things as opposed to others. — Apollodorus

That is certainly true, yes. If I grew up in the South then perhaps I would enjoy country music, for instance, though if I were so conditioned… I would actually enjoy country music.

After all, we are influenced by group think and by the dominant mentality and culture of the society we live in. — Apollodorus

Again, if I grew up in the South I would have been influenced by whatever subcultures exists there, and they would have left an indelible mark. You just pointed out yourself they we’re conditioned this way, to enjoy certain things as opposed to others.

I don’t see how group-think relates to this. Group-think is an issue when serious errors are made because criticism is discouraged within a group. For example, if someone made a Pepsi commercial where Kendall Jenner saves BLM protesters from being shot because she tamed a police officer by giving him a Pepsi, that might appear rather tone-deaf and end up being largely counterproductive to the endeavor. Yes-(wo)men only say yes, and so mistakes are made.

Because she’s not doing it for you or for any other men - she is expressing a potentiality that is denied to most women. So she’s doing it for women. We watch and admire the power she has to act this way without fear. We see that it is possible, and it empowers women and girls to argue against expectations that we behave and dress modestly so as not to inadvertently ‘invite’ men to attack us. That doesn’t mean I’m going to dance on the street in my underwear, but it’s important to recognise both that I CAN and that the fact that I’m afraid to is not because I’m a woman, but because there’s still a problem with how women are judged and valued. — Possibility

I can see how this might work on a purely hypothetical level.

However, the fact remains that pop singers and record companies do what they are doing for profit in the first place, which raises questions about their ulterior motives regardless of what they say in public.

Another thing is that, in many parts of the Western world women are free to walk on the street in shorts or miniskirts and bikini tops or other revealing outfits (though not necessarily in underwear) without fear of being attacked by men. So, I'm not entirely sure what more could be achieved in this regard.

On the other hand, there are other popular trends like violent hip hop and the general "gangsta culture" that glorifies the culture of American street gangs and street hustlers. I don't know whether women and girls actually feel "empowered" when they are called, or call each other, "bitches" and "hos" and whether this actually helps reduce violence against women.

Personally, I tend to believe that in order to change the way women are judged, valued and treated, it is necessary to change the way women are seen by men. Undressing every time you want to sing something seems like a strange way to go about it and I doubt that it actually works. Judging by certain trends imported from Latin America, Asia and some African countries with high violence rates against women, the problem is far from being solved.

Apparently, in the 1960s, women decided not to wear bras in order to "smash patriarchy and advance feminism (or socialism)". I have a nagging feeling that it isn't going to happen any time soon. Though it may have some PR value for some.

Well, by "group think" I meant a situation where the individual adopts and acts on the views and behaviors of the group instead of his or her own (or where they act in ways that are different from the ways they might act if they were on their own).

And I still believe that the general culture of the society we live in does have some influence on the ways we think, act, or enjoy things. For example, in China they may enjoy eating dogs but this may seem less trendy in America or Europe, etc.

Your wording was awkward, stating “we are influenced by group-think”, because it’s like saying that we’re influenced by social conformity. Social conformity is often regarded as weak or too timid, and in that case it can be repellent.

Do you find that such women are generally creative in other ways, like writing fiction or playing saxophone? Because otherwise that's rather a bootstrapped explanation. — Kenosha Kid

In my experience this is the case.

Also, doesn't good fashion bring a smile to your face? Maybe you come into work early in the morning and you see a woman in a beautiful coat, isn't that nice? There's so many different styles and colors.

Other than that, I tend to agree with Wayfarer. Either someone is alluring or they are not. They don’t need to be in their underwear. :smile: — Apollodorus

Really? You think make up or clothes don't matter to attractiveness? I would think this one over if I were you.

Personally, I tend to believe that in order to change the way women are judged, valued and treated, it is necessary to change the way women are seen by men. Undressing every time you want to sing something seems like a strange way to go about it and I doubt that it actually works. — Apollodorus

Just curious, would you ever say something like this to e.g. a gay man? Do gay men need to be more "respectable" and "cover up" so we can finally be respected by people like you? You want to change the way women or gay men are viewed by men? Maybe start by getting off your high horse.

I'm going to flip your statement around and advocate for that position. I'm just swapping "men" with "women" here.

"Personally, I tend to believe that in order to change the way men are judged, valued and treated, it is necessary to change the way men are seen by women."

Men want to gain the approval of women, right? So why do you all have to be so damn intimidating and unemotional all the time? Why can't you all just try to be cuter? Why not hold hands with your friends when you walk in public and wear a bit of jewelry? Why is it us striving for your approval rather than you striving for ours?

Your wording was awkward, stating “we are influenced by group-think”, — praxis

I'll put that on file for future reference.

Just curious, would you ever say something like this to e.g. a gay man? Do gay men need to be more "respectable" and "cover up" so we can finally be respected by people like you? — K Turner

(1) I never said that you can't be curious, (2) I never said anything about "covering up", (3) I never said anything about "gay men", and (4) I never said anyone needs to "strive for my approval". :roll:

Also, doesn't good fashion bring a smile to your face? Maybe you come into work early in the morning and you see a woman in a beautiful coat, isn't that nice? There's so many different styles and colors. — K Turner

You know _I'm_ not gay, right? ;) Very occasionally the way someone is dressed will knock me off my socks, but no, generally it's face, particularly eyes, and personality. And legs. Lovely, long... You see, now I'm horny. There's just no differentiation there.

Btw I have never observed any correlation between attentiveness to appearance and any creative skill. In fact, I'd posit an inverse correlation if Instagram were anything to go by, but in reality there's probably no correlation.

4) I never said anyone needs to "strive for my approval" — Apollodorus

Personally, I tend to believe that in order to change the way women are judged, valued and treated, it is necessary to change the way women are seen by men. — Apollodorus

You are a man, right? You're talking about changing the way women are seen by men, so maybe start with yourself. Maybe the culprit here is your own standards.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be anti-male here; I'll sometimes give women similar advice when it comes to their own conceptions of men.



I don't think it's a gay thing; I think it's just a general aesthetic appreciation. Fashion & make-up absolutely effects how attractive men consider someone. Beauty often takes skill, effort, and there's a lot that goes into it. Men are visual creatures.

You're talking about changing the way women are seen by men, so maybe start with yourself. — K Turner

I think you should try to follow the discussion before you accuse people for no reason. I was simply replying to @Possibility's remark below:

there’s still a problem with how women are judged and valued. — Possibility

@Possibility said that, not me. Obviously, "judged and valued" means judged and valued by society, including men.

If there is a problem with how women are judged and valued by men, then this implies that changes must be made in the way men view women.

Men in general. Not all men, because some men, myself included, do not have any problems with women. I do not go around attacking women, disrespecting them, asking them to cover up or whatever you are accusing me of. Maybe that's what you do.

Lets first identify your position.

If I'm understanding you correctly you're implying that women degrade themselves through these performances and if only things were a little more proper relations between the sexes would improve. You may not have said this explicitly but it's what I'm gathering from going over this discussion. I could have misread, I'm not perfect.
— Apollodorus