Posted on 12/13/2016 4:26:26 AM PST by Kaslin
My last column was titled "Is Donald Trump a Misogynist?" After reading reactions throughout the internet, I realize how important it is to elaborate on the subject of how men view women.
One of the proofs that higher education makes those who attend college more foolish, more naive and often even more ignorant about life than those who never attended college is the widespread belief among the well-educated that when men sexually objectify women it means that they are misogynists, haters of women.
So, here is a list of eight truths about males and sexual objectification for those who have a degree in any of the "social sciences."
1. It is completely normal for heterosexual men to see women they are sexually attracted to as sex objects.
2. That such sexual objectification is normal and has nothing to do with misogyny is proved, among other things, by the fact that homosexual men see men to whom they are sexually attracted as sex objects. If heterosexual men are misogynists, homosexual men are man haters.
3. One reason for this is the almost-unique power of a visual to sexually arouse men. Men are aroused just by glancing at a woman's arm, ankle, calf, thigh or stomach, even without ever seeing her face. Those legs, calves, arms, etc. are sexual objects. That's why there are innumerable websites featuring them.
4. Every normal heterosexual man who sees a woman as a sexual object can also completely respect her mind, her character and everything else nonsexual about her. Men do this all the time.
5. Most heterosexual women also see sexy women as sex objects, and they are hardly misogynists. Ask your wife or girlfriend which would turn her on more: watching a male strip show in front of a female audience, or a female strip show in front of a male audience.
6. Lucky is a couple if the man can sexually objectify his partner. The longer a husband can at least occasionally regard his wife as a sex object, the better their marriage. It is not always easy to see the woman you see every day, the mother of your children, as a sex object.
7. The whole purpose of lingerie and other sexual attire is to render the woman a sex object in her partner's eyes. Are all the women who wear lingerie, bikinis, cheerleading outfits or whatever else turns their partner on -- and hopefully them as well -- haters of women?
8. If your husband denies these assertions, he is lying to you because he is afraid that you will react angrily or that he will hurt your feelings. He may also be lying to himself -- after all, he, too, went to college and reads liberal opinion pieces on misogyny; and he wants to be an "enlightened" male.
It is a sign of the times that these eight points need to be written. The question is, why are any of these points -- known to just about every woman and man who ever lived prior to the 1960s -- controversial to so many well-educated people today?
The answer is leftism and its offshoot: feminism.
Leftism is first and foremost a denial of reality.
Leftists deny reality for two reasons.
One is that leftism is a religion (a secular one), and therefore it has dogmas that supersede truth.
The other reason is that reality is filled with disappointment and pain, and avoidance of pain is the central psychological impetus of leftism. This explains the infantilizing safe rooms at the institutions the left controls most: the universities. These rooms exist to protect students from hearing an idea with which they differ (recall reason one) and from hearing an idea that causes them pain.
Name the left-wing position, and in almost every case you will see how it exemplifies either or both of these reasons.
It is reality that human nature is not basically good. But since the French Enlightenment, the left has affirmed that people are basically good. That's why leftists blame violent crime on poverty and racism, not on the violent criminal.
It is reality that the higher the minimum wage, the fewer new workers will be hired. But because of dogma, the left denies it. (In 1987, when The New York Times editorial page was not as pure left as it is today, one editorial was titled "The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00.")
It is reality that Islam means "submit," but this meaning conflicts with left-wing wishful thinking that all cultures are morally equal. Thus, virtually every left-wing professor and publication says that Islam means "peace." (To the extent that it has any connection to the Arabic word for "peace" -- "salaam" -- it is the peace that ensues after all of humanity has submitted to Islam.) The amount of left-wing denial of reality concerning the Islamic world is about equal to the number of assertions leftists make about it. (Thus, the Obama administration labeled the Fort Hood massacre of 13 people by a radical Muslim as "workplace violence.")
It is also reality, not an expression of misogyny, that men see the objects of their sexual desire as sexual objects. But this is too painful for feminists and other leftists. And it violates feminist theory, which says that men and women are essentially the same, and seeing a woman as a sexual object is misogyny.
Therefore, this reality is rejected.
"So why do so many women - and men - call Trump a misogynist?This reminds me of something I heard Prager say years ago. It was in reference to a couple of college professors who were animal rights movement fanatics. They stated and taught their students that there was absolutely no difference between a human baby and any other animal's young - that they were absolutely equal in both value and rights and that killing an animal was the moral equivalent of murdering a human being. They made it very clear they saw a newborn child as no more deserving of special consideration than any kitten or baby snake.Because he has so often described women in sexual terms. Because, as the charge goes, he "objectifies" women.
Now, before responding to that, it is worth noting that this clearly disturbs college-educated women and men far more than it does those who did not attend college, which either means the college-educated are wiser on this matter, or the non-college-educated are wiser.
As in most matters, my position is that college makes most people less wise. You have to go to college to think that men who see women they find attractive as sex objects hate women. Throughout history, women understood that men sexually objectify women, that this is male nature and has nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with hatred. Only the well-educated equate sexual objectification with hatred."
Prager's response to hearing this was classic and I've never forgotten it. It seems applicable in so much of what we hear from the Left and the SJWs on daily basis nowadays.
Dennis Prager: The foolishness of that statement I can only attribute to higher education. You have to have gone to college to say something that stupid.
At my fitness club, many, many women would look more attractive in those sweat pants rather than in stretch yoga pants that were not designed for their figures.
Only “real” men view women as sex objects.
That picture of Chelsea looks like Howdy Doody in drag..
If asked that question, my response is, "I'm looking at exactly what you are trying to get me to look at."
Good article. Thanks for posting it all.
If it was all about height, they’d be wearing comfy platforms.
High heels are painfully angled to make the legs look longer, the butt stick out and the walk more delicate. All traits of female attractiveness
True. Yoga pants are much better.
Every single high school to early 20’s guy can attest, it’s not her body but her mind that they are initially atteacted to...
Don’t know if I could say the same for girls thinking but the chubby guys at that time always seemed to be by themselves.
Prager superbly stating the obvious.
It matters not how many reasons Liberals have for avoiding reality; the point is they avoid reality by creating a notion of reality that suits their dogma.
That observation led me to my Liberal Theory. The basic premise of the theory is that Liberals lack the human genome that allows humans process reality.
It is true that one can reality but it is also true that one cannot avoid the consequences resulting from reality avoidance.
A couple of adages come to mind when discussing the relationship between men and women.
Men see women as sex objects whilst women see men as success objects.
Women give sex to get love whilst men give love to get sex.
Trump’s words bring this reality to the surface; women like sex with successful men. What is sad about this observation is that it was previously unknown by Liberals. Now they know but they can’t accept the reality. Perhaps they lack a gene?
Is that Monica? Her hand is in the correct shape, and her mouth is open.
“If it wasn’t for the sex, really, how many men would have anything to do with a women? If it wasn’t for babies, how many women would have anything to do with a man? Our society is cuckoo. Fleshbots and artificial insemination, brave new world ahead...”
Many women are unstable and hate men due to the trauma/confusion of being truly objectified. Especially if it happened as a child.
If casual sex is made irrelevant via machines, females and males would act very differently toward one another.
If a man can get virtual sexual gratification from impossibly hot females at the touch of a button, real females around him will no longer appear as sex objects.
I think virtual sex would benefit society overall and make people far less obsessed with getting sex from others. Females and males would become friendlier. The negative is some would get addicted and never go outside...
Oh, that’s a Bieber concert. I thought from all the crying, anguished faces it was Hillary HQ on election night.
If it weren't fer that thang, there'd be bounty on 'em.
You forgot that your mother is a woman. Do you hate her too, as it’s obvious by your comment that you hate women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.