There is no such thing as Sexual Objectification

Full text after the cut.

Jenniyearsafter sent me a link from the telegraph in the UK to an article titled “Feminists boycotting Twitter is Not the Way to End Trolling”.

Once again, the article proves my point.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wome…

The rape threats are as follows:

“If your friends survived rape they weren’t raped properly” and “Hide your kids I be raping all yall up in here” are both not rape threats.

The first is not a threat, the second references a video a while back in which a black man prevented the rape of his sister and when he was interviewed he said “Hide your wives and kids and your husbands because they’re raping everyone up in here!”

It was sarcasm. Unless children were actually being raped as he or she said it which, if true, means worse was going on than some troll twits to an adult woman.

Well, presumably an adult woman.

Moving on to a disturbing comment I found on Hannibal’s video ”

This is by Pauline Triage

“Cut Toronto a wide berth. That city is stupid with MRAs. Speaking of which, I wonder whatever happened to that 19-year-old boy who claimed he’d been gang-raped by four fat chicks. The National Post gave that story quite a bit of press for a few weeks because that paper is very sympathetic to MRAs. Something tells me it turned out to be bullshit, something the National Post wouldn’t be quite so eager to crow about.”

So, apparently, recognizing male victims of rape is a Men’s rights plot and a result of our infiltration of the media.

This feminist doesn’t believe men can be raped by women, folks. Full stop. Cannot happen. I dare you to even find a single MRA commentator who would doesn’t believe women can be raped by men. I double dog dare you. Feel free to trawl the skeeze and slime of the men’s rights movement for a single wack-a-loon MRA who says this.

If you find one and evidence that he or she said it I’ll draw you a picture of my shaved pussy.

Cat.

On to my final item.

I’ve been arguing with a feminist called “the safe word is banana” on my video “Men’s Rights Edmonton versus the Slutters” regarding sexual objectification.

The reality is that there is no such thing as sexual objectification. Normal men do not sexually objectify women.

A study showed that men respond not to a woman they find attractive but a woman they find attractive who is indicating interest in them by looking at them.

Let me just repeat that. Being attractive is necessary but not sufficient to elicit a sexual response from a man; a woman also has to express interest in him.

In order to recognize a woman’s subjective state of desire, a man has to recognize her as a separate entity capable of her own thoughts and feelings. In fact his sexual response follows an empathetic modelling of her subjective state based on her social cues.

Men are not responding sexually to women as objects; they are responding to women as subjects.

As such, the term ‘sexual objectification’ only real meaning is to demonize men and perpetuate a myth about men’s sexuality as coarse, predatory, animalistic and vicious.

All of which is false. Men’s sexuality is tied to our advanced theory of mind as humans, our empathy and our ability to model others emotional states.

Men’s sexuality is empathetic, compassionate and mutual.

As such I believe using the term “sexual objectification” should be considered a form of non-contact sexual violence inflicted on men.

So feminism in promoting “sexual objectification” as an actual thing that men do is engaging in sexual violence against men as a group.

Every single angle I look at feminist thought from, it invariably reveals itself to be foul.

Now I know for a fact that the vast majority of feminists are good people because the vast majority of all people are good people.

But why do you support this? Why are you so tied to this word? When are you going to wake up and recognize that this word is being used to commit an atrocity against men?

Unfortunately I’m having trouble finding the specific study again. It’s referred to in this video lecture:

watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE&list=PL848F2368C90DD­C3D

Alison Tieman
Follow me

Alison Tieman

Artist/Writer at Xenospora
Alison has been researching men's issues since her mother gave her "Princess at the Window" by Donna Laframboise in 1994 when she was 16. She's taken part in men's rights communities since she started posting on soc.men in 2003. Since 2011 she's run the gender apostate blog Genderratic with her pal Gingko the wonder leaf and she founded Honey Badger Brigade in 2013 with Hannah Wallen and Karen Straughan. According to Vice the pony she most resembles is Fluttershy.
Alison Tieman
Follow me
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather
  • Ginkgo

    “A study showed that men respond not to a woman they find attractive but a woman they find attractive who is indicating interest in them by looking at them.”

    Straight porn made for men proves this. The woman’s face is almost always the focus for much of the time. if anyone is being objectified and shown only as a body part it’s the “woodsman”.

    The only reason anyone gets away with this kind of mischaracterization of straight porn is that almost none of the SJWs opining about it are too lazy and intellectually dishonest to actually review and study it.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    I once argued that sexual objectification humanizes rather than dehumanizes people. The argument is that since sexual reproduction is the single most important human interaction (because it perpetuates the species), then it is also the most human of all interactions. Viewing another person as a sexual object is then humanizing as it indicates at least a minimal interest in reproduction.

    http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=3454

    I will disagree about the second statement “Hide your kids I be raping all yall up in here.” It is a threat. A threat is an expressed intent to cause harm. While it generally refers to a future act, the harm can be imminent. I would argue that the present is about as imminent as it gets. Further, the word “be” as it is used could mean “will be” particularly in light of the context “Hide your kids” which is a warning that implies future danger if the instruction is not followed. Sarcasm aside, this statement could easily be taken as threatening.

  • Ginkgo

    “I will disagree about the second statement “Hide your kids I be raping all yall up in here.” It is a threat.”

    TDOM, the point here is that it is a willful misquote. It is a lie. There was no threat; it was manufactured for effect.This was a manipulative lie.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    I guess I missed that point. That does make a difference.

  • Ginkgo

    TDOM, inventing the dragon is the highest pinnacle of damseling.

    If it is sexual objectification for a man to look sexually at a woman, is it also sexual objectification for a woman to make an attract that attention?

    If is argued that it is not, because she is not doing it intentionally, isn’t it the effect and not the intent that matters and etermines whether it is sexual objectification or not?

  • typhonblue

    @ Ginkgo

    It wasn’t a lie, it was quoted directly from a twit. However the problem is that it:

    1) references an internet meme. It’s about as credible as me saying I’m going to envelope you with my over 9000 vaginas.
    2) refers to immediate behaviours in its so-called threat, aka. I am raping you right now!

    When someone says “I’m raping you right now” it can’t possibly be a threat because threats are threats of some future action.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    @Ginkgo

    The objectification argument used by feminists is that sexual objectification of women by men creates the condition in which young girls learn to objectify their own bodies in order to attract men resulting in negative body image and lower self-esteem. This supposedly relegates women to a “sex class” thereby promoting Patriarchy.

    Obviously I disagree. My position is stated above. Of course I also think the promoting Patriarchy stuff is nonsense. Sexual objectification is necessary to propagate the species. What it promotes is human reproduction.

  • John Anderson

    I think there is sexual objectification of women and men. The mistake that feminists make is that they view sexual objectification as worse. It’s hard to argue that people who take creep shits are actually thinking of the person as he’s taking an up skirt shot.

    On the other hand, we constantly see reports of people being killed that don’t mention men, 100 people were killed including women and children. NGOs work to protect and provide for women and children. Men are not considered human enough. When watching gladiatorial sports like football or boxing, how many people pause to reflect that it’s an actual human being getting hit. When something serious happens, someone may show concern, but the concern is as much or more about when he’ll return to help the team win as opposed to how much pain he’s in. This is the objectification that results in harm. It blinds us to the suffering of men.

  • John Anderson

    @ TDOM

    I’ve read a complaint by a feminist that said that women’s bodies are valued for how they look while men’s bodies are valued for what they can do. That’s why sexual objectification of women is wrong.

    I pointed out that there are destructive behaviors associated with admiring a body for what it can do. Just look at the performance enhancing drugs problem in professional sports and the bigorexia that is affecting some men who spend unhealthy amounts of time at a gym. Feminists only consider traditionally female destructive behaviors, eating disorders, as destructive. I haven’t received a reply.

    You can go farther than that. Since me are objectified as tools of resource acquisition, they accept significantly more dangerous jobs to get higher pay. This results in men being 90% of the deaths in industrial accidents.

  • dungone

    Both quotes are actually sarcastic, no? “If your friends survived rape they weren’t raped properly” is making fun of using “survivor” as a euphemism for victim. It’s a criticism rape hysteria.

  • Ginkgo

    “using “survivor” as a euphemism for victim.”

    While also being damseling. “Survivor” implies your life was at risk. That is trying to put rape on the level of attempted murder.

  • IogSotot

    I’m ambivalent about that one, personally. “Victim” is appropriate for obvious reasons, but “survivor” can also imply “not just a victim”. Like “It happened, but I got past that.”

    I’m going to be honest though, I’d probably use “survivor” mainly because I don’t want my head bitten off for using the wrong word.

  • Tamen

    Dungone, Ginkgo: I would think it best to leave it up to the victim themselves whether they want to use the term survivor about themselves or not. Some victims may experience after-effects of the rape such as PTSD, depression and others – which may again be a factor in any suicide thoughts, contemplations and/or attempts. Getting past that is very much a matter of survival in my view.

    For instance James Landrith uses the term “rape survivor” about himself. I don’t think anyone should police his choice to do so.

  • Ginkgo

    I think James Landrith came close enough to suicide to qualify for the term.

    I note with interest the absence in anything I have rever read on female victims of any mention of suicide induced by rape, and I feel sure that if there had been even one we would have heard aaaaaall about it over and over.

    The reason this is an issue specfically with female rape victims, specifically white female rape victims, is the long shadow of toxic femininity. When victimhood is a feature of your gender role, you tend to perform it all out of proportion to reality, the same a stoicism.

    The only difference is heightened scrutiny to rule out this effect. Probably most white female rape victims struggle with suicidal thoughts, self-destructive behaviors and a whole range of horrific after-effects. It’s just that we in this society have a legacy of very destructive rape hysteria around a certain class of victims and we have a historical duty to be cautious.

  • Anon

    Sexual objectification doesn’t exist.

  • http://NA Bernard Moraan

    This is a pretty twisted article and comments thread. You cite a single article which you don’t even cite in the end. How about this for a study – http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx

    Its from the largest association of psychologists in the world, 152’000 of them to be precise, and it cites all kinds of actual reference material.

    Here’s a shortened version of the study for those of you too lazy to consider that you may be rape apologists (you are, by the way) –

    http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/women/strategic-plan-recommendations.aspx

    Its bullshit that men need women to express interest in them to be aroused. I guess there’s no such thing as guys who masturbate to girl on girl porn. And men who rape women who are sleeping or unconscious? They’re not aroused silly!

    Sexual objectification is when someone is considered as nothing more than a thing which is useful for providing sexual gratification. Casual sex with contraception obviously shows that desire for the species to reproduce, and desire for sexual activity are not the same. So no it is not humanizing to want to ‘fuck sluts’ or ‘rape bitches’, or say ‘I would ride that’. That all falls under the header of sexual objectification.

    Finally, the phrase: “If your friends survived rape they weren’t raped properly” clearly implies that a rape is a job to be done well and is not complete till the victim is dead. If you people (who I wouldn’t be replying to if I didn’t have some faith left that one of you might have a shred of empathy left on this ironically empathy-themed website) don’t think that comment is intended and interpreted as intimidation like a KKK member joking about beating niggers, then you really need a different theme for your website.

  • Ginkgo

    “Here’s a shortened version of the study for those of you too lazy to consider that you may be rape apologists (you are, by the way) -”

    Bernard, you are responding to a post written by a rape victim – a woman raped repeatedly by a woman. How does that square with your comfortable little paradigm of who is and isn’t a rpae apologist? You might want to check your self-satisfied moral assumptions before they make a complete fool out of you.

    “If you people (who I wouldn’t be replying to if I didn’t have some faith left that one of you might have a shred of empathy left on this ironically empathy-themed website) don’t think that comment is intended and interpreted as intimidation like a KKK member joking about beating niggers, then you really need a different theme for your website.”

    The KKK? Oh, the irony! Here’s an article arguing against rape hysteria, and now here recently Alabama finally got around to exonerating the last of the Scottsboro Boys. just so you know, as you apparently do not already, rape hysteria was their stock in trade, the same Sacred White Womanhood trade you are trafficking in.

    You say:
    “Finally, the phrase: “If your friends survived rape they weren’t raped properly” clearly implies that a rape is a job to be done well and is not complete till the victim is dead.”

    Derailment. That is not why that was quoted and that was clearly not the meaning of the text.

    ““If your friends survived rape they weren’t raped properly” and “Hide your kids I be raping all yall up in here” are both not rape threats.

    The first is not a threat, the second references a video a while back in which a black man prevented the rape of his sister and when he was interviewed he said “Hide your wives and kids and your husbands because they’re raping everyone up in here!”

    the issue was whether or not these were credible threats. They clearly were not threats of any kind; the second one is a blatant misquote.

    And speaking of rape apology – if you want to see real rpae apology, you have to go to feminist spaces:
    ““Cut Toronto a wide berth. That city is stupid with MRAs. Speaking of which, I wonder whatever happened to that 19-year-old boy who claimed he’d been gang-raped by four fat chicks. The National Post gave that story quite a bit of press for a few weeks because that paper is very sympathetic to MRAs. Something tells me it turned out to be bullshit, something the National Post wouldn’t be quite so eager to crow about.”

    Those are the real rape apologists, your precious feminists.

  • typhonblue

    @ Bernard

    That wasn’t a study, it was a report.

    And it didn’t prove that men sexually respond to women as objects rather than women as subjects.

    All it seems to prove is that sexualization correlates with negative outcomes for women.

    I don’t disagree with that, but I would disagree with the causal arrow.

    It isn’t sexualization in and of itself that causes negative outcomes, it’s associating women as a class with the category “acted upon”. This association creates the negative outcomes identified and also inspires women to sexualize themselves more to compensate for their perceived lack of agency.

    “Its bullshit that men need women to express interest in them to be aroused. I guess there’s no such thing as guys who masturbate to girl on girl porn.”

    Men can also be aroused by identifying with female arousal. Shock!

    “And men who rape women who are sleeping or unconscious? They’re not aroused silly!”

    And women who rape men who are sleeping or unconscious are not aroused either.

    I never said male rapists didn’t sexually objectify their victims–either male or female–nor did I say female rapists weren’t sexually objectifying their victims.

    I was talking about normal people. You know, the vast majority of men and women who don’t rape?

  • Adiabat

    My word, that report is piss-poor.

    I lost count of the number of weasel-words such as “may” and “linked to”, which seem to be there mainly because what they are claiming has no evidence base, and at best only shows correlations and not causations.

    And their “definition” of sexualisation consists of four “conditions” or “componants” (they can’t make their mind up what they are), but only one is needed for it to be counted as sexualisation?! They either have to stick to one or make it clear which one they are referring to whenever they mention ‘sexualisation’. They do neither. So basically they’re using four separate definitions interchangeably to make the claims they want to make.

    From the report: “Research documenting the pervasiveness and influence of such products and portrayals [media representations they don’t like] is sorely needed.”

    So they don’t know anything, as the evidence for their beliefs doesn’t exist, yet feel able to publish this report and put pressure on authoritative bodies to legislate anyway? What the fuck. This is not science, this is politics.

    As we all know when you mix science and politics you get politics.

    “Although most of these studies have been conducted on women in late adolescence (i.e., college age), findings are likely to generalize to younger adolescents and to girls”

    No they are not likely to generalize you lazy fucks. As college students the test subjects are likely to be already exposed to bullshit theory like “objectification”, and are likely to have reassessed their earlier behaviour due to this exposure. Plus it’s the prime age for embracing counter-culture, which is likely to result in them demonising mainstream culture more than they would otherwise. These things will affect your results. Go and do some actual research and get back to us.

    “Alternative media such as “zines” (Web-based magazines), “blogs” (Web logs) and feminist magazines, books and websites encourage girls to become activists who speak out and develop their own alternatives.”

    WTF. Is this a public endorsement of feminism, and vastly under evidenced non-scientific feminist “theory”, from the APA? (And Ally Fogg says feminism has no influence.)

    “Organized religious [instruction]… can offer girls important practical and psychological alternatives to the values conveyed by popular culture.”

    Enough said. I could keep on going considering the number of flaws in that report but I’ll leave it there.

    FTR I think it is likely that media representations of women will have an effect on girls, but an organisation such as the APA shouldn’t be campaigning on this until they’ve done their jobs and actually built up an evidence base.

  • John

    Is this the article you were looking for?

    http://www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/dev_group/ufrith/documents/kampe_n.pdf

    I found it in the references for the Sapolski course.