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.
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.