Posted on 12/13/2016 4:26:26 AM PST by Kaslin
wow.
I had the very same initial reaction.
Don’t gay guys also objectify sexy women? And gay women objectify men by being tranny...? This is the same as fake news and global warming. It’s all bullshit.
Axel Foley: How long would it take to shave those legs?
Karla Fry: I suppose you're trying to be charming.
Axel Foley: Just offering my grooming services.
each has his tastes but as for I
i likes a certain party
gimme the he-man's solid bliss
for youse ideas i'll match youse
a pretty girl who naked is
is worth a million statues
― e.e. cummings
Obligatory HELEN THOMAS pics!!!???
Apparently, a joyful FR tradition has been forgotten. I find that sad.
/catherine%20zeta%20jones/catherine-zeta-jones-56-s.jpg)
[Triple response because you had to endure an unreasonable delay.]
This one's for Jimmah Carter.
Kind of the American version of the burka, don’t you think? Ultimately, it doesn’t much matter what the wrapping paper looks like; what’s under the paper, whether it’s newsprint or gold leaf is the what counts, and we pretty much all look the same in the dark.
So many words, when the answer is simple.
Bottom line? Sex is a biological imperative. Men (and women) can no more suppress the urge to merge than they can eschew the need to eat, or respond to danger with fight or flight.
Evolutionary biology will always win out.
When a man becomes aroused by looking at a magazine centerfold or watching a stripper perform its because he’s attracted to her body parts, not her personality because at that moment he has no idea what that personality is. Have you never been asked “Are you a boob man of a leg man?” That by definition is objectification. It’s how a man rolls but many are afraid to admit it in today’s PC culture.
You’re making the same mistake Prager made. Attraction comes before arousal. Objectification of a given individual can only come after attraction. Systematic objectification of a particular body part (i.e. “Are you a boob man of a leg man?”) can only come after multiple times of attraction and arousal. Prager is mistakenly not making proper distinctions. He is lumping in all these things as objectification. Objectification is not natural as is attraction. Objectification is a learned response-based behavior.
I disagree with you 100%. When I’m attracted to a woman it is based on physical assets alone. That is objectification. In other words the object of my desire (breasts, legs, behind, etc) ate body parts completely separate from any aspect of the woman’s personality. It is only later, when personality conflict began to arise that that attraction fades and a man moves on. This is one of the reasons why a man can marry the most beautiful supermodel, and get tired of her and wind up getting a divorce as often happens in Hollywood. If this was patently not true, then prostitution would be a useless endeavor. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
“I disagree with you 100%. When I’m attracted to a woman it is based on physical assets alone. That is objectification.”
Not according to you. You just said, “When I’m attracted to a woman...” Even you know what I am saying it is true. Logically, the only way for you to have written that sentence and make sense is if you said, “When I FIRST objectify a woman...” But even that implies something comes BEFORE objectification. And it does. And that’s why Prager and you are both wrong.
Also, objectification is not about the “object” of your desire. And the very use of the word “desire” is about “attraction” and not objectification.
As I said, Prager is making a mistake because he is not making proper distinctions.
If you want to know - to honestly know - the proper steps about attraction, desire, objectification I suggest you start with this: http://cuapress.cua.edu/books/viewbook.cfm?book=LOLD
“If this was patently not true, then prostitution would be a useless endeavor. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.”
Your comment about prostitution makes no sense. Prostitution is not about attraction or desire, but the most extreme form of objectification. Being attracted to a woman you’ve just seen for the first time is entirely different than paying a woman for sex. If you don’t believe me, then just tell your spouse that the first time you saw her pretty much rated right up there with shelling out cash for a blowjob in an alley way with a crack whore.
Your wife would agree with me. I’m just saying. . .
And when the wife decides the husband no longer is “worthy” of that urge to merge, the husband gets more and more frustrated.
I’d honestly rather be by myself than told the only place I can visit is closed - permanently. After 4+ years, I bailed. I’d rather NOT be with her ever again, because of the attitude that last few times we were together that she was doing me a favor, or that it was a chore.
ah, thanks for the mammories, er, memories, my friend.
Nice looking area!
I just love Utah’s varied landscapes.
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.