AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Do you think that sexual objectification is real?

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I do believe sexual objectification is real. A lot of cam models do get treated like an object. Therefore, they get demands to take off their clothing which really frustrates a lot of cam models. True, it is a job, but you need to treat people with respect. It's the internet age we live in. You have to take the good with the bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharlotteDusk and MojitosJourney
Yeah and I don't think it's existence is really debatable at this point, but I think you could debate its impact or how to tackle art/media that relies on it, whether objectifying dudes is subversive and good or just perpetuating the problem, if you can satire sexual objectification, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: annamaytiddies, Booty_4U, ramblin and 6 others
  • Funny!
  • Like
Reactions: CharlotteDusk, SophiaSophia and swagger
Yes of course, objectification happens in all sorts of areas. If you want to look at sexual objectification something that I have always found interesting is comparing magazines. If anyone's interested take a google search. Look up, women's magazines, men's magazines, lad's mags, gay magazines and lesbian magazines.

Women's magazines are predominantly sexy women pulling sexy poses in nice clothes with nice hair. Some of them are scantily dressed but mostly they're clothed with a bit of skin, especially some cleavage. They are definitely sexual in nature. I would guess that this is what is portrayed as how straight women want to look.

Men's magazines, you will see a strong looking man looking important. Possibly in a suit, often with a serious pose. This image is a man who knows what he's doing, and the image is not remotely sexual in nature. Occasionally you see a bit of arm action showing muscle, but the idea of the image is more strength than anything else. Occasionally you'll see a scantily dressed woman on the cover.

Lads mags will basically always be glamour models and very sexual in nature. Boobs out, barely any clothing. The slogans are derogatory in nature.

Gay magazines look basically identical to lads mags, except they are men on the cover. Men topless in underwear, showing their 6 pack abs and maximum skin in a sexy pose. These poses are identical to the ones women usually do on their covers.

Then if you search lesbian magazines you will find women on the covers who look strong, sometimes beautiful but not sexual. The clear idea of all of these images is strength, confidence and happiness.

Sexual objectification definitely exists, but why? Why are the magazines aimed towards straight women showing very sexual women? Why are the magazines aimed towards straight men either showing women in an extremely sexual light or men in a strong, powerful and important light? Why is it that lesbians have no interest in seeing women being sexual and prefer a woman looking confident with herself? Why is it that as soon as it's turned around for gay men that the men are as sexualised as the women?

This could be for lots of reasons, maybe it's social, maybe biological. I'd make a guess that in regards to women's magazines, women are still taught that us being attractive is more important than our partner and that we need to use our looks to attract a man. And therefore a woman being sexy and beautiful on the cover is out "ideal".
In comparison with men's magazines, men are still either taught that women are there to be sexualised and objectified, or that it's normal for that to happen and that it's ok for them to be sexual. And with the strong men on the covers, boys are taught when they're young to aspire to be strong and follow their dreams and that that will in turn translate to attracting a woman. So seeing a strong, successful man on the cover is their "ideal".

Then when it translates to gay magazines, well I guess men still enjoy the same kind of sexuality and therefore in this situation gay men will step up their game to attract a man. It's always an interesting thing how much more effort a lot of gay men put into their appearances than straight men. Is this a biological thing that men are more visual than women or is it cultural?

If it's biological then this probably won't change, and unfortunately it will hold women back and women will continue to be objectified. If it is cultural and men can start to be taught that women who push themselves in the workplace and are happy and confident because they're doing what they love are as or more attractive than a woman who is happy and confident because she looks good.
As in most situations where you make an argument for nature versus nurture it's most likely a mixture of both. I think it can be controlled as there are plenty of men who grew up seeing strong women who go on to find strong women more attractive than a pretty but weak woman. And vice versa. I think we are gradually heading more in the direction of women being respected for their talents and abilities and not their looks, but we've got a long way for that to happen. There are still plenty of teenage girls who aren't focusing on what they like because they're too busy fussing about their looks. It's not something that is either sexes "fault", women objectify themselves and are a part of this too.

I don't feel particularly objectified as a camgirl if I am performing live. I guess because personality is pretty important to people who watch and tip you. I think images and recorded porn is much easier for this to happen as it's nothing to do with that person, it's only to do their their looks and sexuality. I could see the same thing with a site that was less personality based than MFC and you just like the look of a model and pay her to masturbate/whatever. I've worked as a stipper on the other hand and felt a lot more objectified. It was consensual and I made a lot of money so it was worth it for me, but the attitude is very different to what I experience in MFC.

So that's sexual objectification that is very real. But there are other forms of objectification. I think members can be objectified by camgirls quite easily as you don't hear or see them, it's easy to think of them as tokens and conversation than as a real human. It's one reason I chat to regulars outside my time on cam to get to know them, as well as enjoying the chat I feel it keeps us being real people.

Another form of objectification, I think kids and teenagers sometimes treat their parents and grandparents this way. They get a sense of entitlement and start to assume they're there for money and to look after them and forget that they're real people with feelings.

People in the work place can be objectified by their employers, I am sure the same goes for married couples each way if one person earns and the other stays at home. It's really any situation where someone degrades you down to an object status. Purchasing sex for example by definition is objectifying because you're purchasing time with a human to do what you want. Strip clubs are objectifying. Rape is objectifying. Modelling is objectifying. Treating someone like a personal wallet whether, boyfriend, girlfriend, parent or sibling. It could be a hen party treating cute guys like strippers. People often feel objectified in the service industry, I think especially waiting staff, I found I was treated in a more humanistic way when working behind a bar.

I don't believe there's a person around who isn't guilty of objectifying someone at one point in time. You can also consent to being objectified, and that's ok. It's when people objectify others against their will that it's a seriously shitty thing to do. But we do live in a culture with lots of consensual objectification so I can understand where it comes from.
For example in my teens I my experience with young men who read lads mags growing up would often making horrific and unnecessary comments to women in public about their looks. They've grown up in a culture where objectification is ok and are too young or stupid to understand the line where it stops being socially acceptable. Or maybe they've just never been taught that a line exists. I wonder in some cases if this is why some young men rape but don't see themselves as having done anything wrong. They just don't see that they crossed a line. This is where a culture of objectification merges with what is called "rape culture".
Culture is fascinating, it controls what we see as being acceptable without even realising it. Deniers of cultural impacts are usually the people so ingrained within that culture's social norms that they can't see anything else. It's why it's always good to critically evaluate your beliefs as to whether they're actually what you believe or what you've essentially been brainwashed to believe your entire life.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful!
Reactions: camstory, WickedTouch, Booty_4U and 4 others
IsabellaSnow said:
Yes of course, objectification happens in all sorts of areas. If you want to look at sexual objectification something that I have always found interesting is comparing magazines. If anyone's interested take a google search. Look up, women's magazines, men's magazines, lad's mags, gay magazines and lesbian magazines.

Women's magazines are predominantly sexy women pulling sexy poses in nice clothes with nice hair. Some of them are scantily dressed but mostly they're clothed with a bit of skin, especially some cleavage. They are definitely sexual in nature. I would guess that this is what is portrayed as how straight women want to look.

Men's magazines, you will see a strong looking man looking important. Possibly in a suit, often with a serious pose. This image is a man who knows what he's doing, and the image is not remotely sexual in nature. Occasionally you see a bit of arm action showing muscle, but the idea of the image is more strength than anything else. Occasionally you'll see a scantily dressed woman on the cover.

Lads mags will basically always be glamour models and very sexual in nature. Boobs out, barely any clothing. The slogans are derogatory in nature.

Gay magazines look basically identical to lads mags, except they are men on the cover. Men topless in underwear, showing their 6 pack abs and maximum skin in a sexy pose. These poses are identical to the ones women usually do on their covers.

Then if you search lesbian magazines you will find women on the covers who look strong, sometimes beautiful but not sexual. The clear idea of all of these images is strength, confidence and happiness.

Sexual objectification definitely exists, but why? Why are the magazines aimed towards straight women showing very sexual women? Why are the magazines aimed towards straight men either showing women in an extremely sexual light or men in a strong, powerful and important light? Why is it that lesbians have no interest in seeing women being sexual and prefer a woman looking confident with herself? Why is it that as soon as it's turned around for gay men that the men are as sexualised as the women?

This could be for lots of reasons, maybe it's social, maybe biological. I'd make a guess that in regards to women's magazines, women are still taught that us being attractive is more important than our partner and that we need to use our looks to attract a man. And therefore a woman being sexy and beautiful on the cover is out "ideal".
In comparison with men's magazines, men are still either taught that women are there to be sexualised and objectified, or that it's normal for that to happen and that it's ok for them to be sexual. And with the strong men on the covers, boys are taught when they're young to aspire to be strong and follow their dreams and that that will in turn translate to attracting a woman. So seeing a strong, successful man on the cover is their "ideal".

Then when it translates to gay magazines, well I guess men still enjoy the same kind of sexuality and therefore in this situation gay men will step up their game to attract a man. It's always an interesting thing how much more effort a lot of gay men put into their appearances than straight men. Is this a biological thing that men are more visual than women or is it cultural?

If it's biological then this probably won't change, and unfortunately it will hold women back and women will continue to be objectified. If it is cultural and men can start to be taught that women who push themselves in the workplace and are happy and confident because they're doing what they love are as or more attractive than a woman who is happy and confident because she looks good.
As in most situations where you make an argument for nature versus nurture it's most likely a mixture of both. I think it can be controlled as there are plenty of men who grew up seeing strong women who go on to find strong women more attractive than a pretty but weak woman. And vice versa. I think we are gradually heading more in the direction of women being respected for their talents and abilities and not their looks, but we've got a long way for that to happen. There are still plenty of teenage girls who aren't focusing on what they like because they're too busy fussing about their looks. It's not something that is either sexes "fault", women objectify themselves and are a part of this too.

I don't feel particularly objectified as a camgirl if I am performing live. I guess because personality is pretty important to people who watch and tip you. I think images and recorded porn is much easier for this to happen as it's nothing to do with that person, it's only to do their their looks and sexuality. I could see the same thing with a site that was less personality based than MFC and you just like the look of a model and pay her to masturbate/whatever. I've worked as a stipper on the other hand and felt a lot more objectified. It was consensual and I made a lot of money so it was worth it for me, but the attitude is very different to what I experience in MFC.

So that's sexual objectification that is very real. But there are other forms of objectification. I think members can be objectified by camgirls quite easily as you don't hear or see them, it's easy to think of them as tokens and conversation than as a real human. It's one reason I chat to regulars outside my time on cam to get to know them, as well as enjoying the chat I feel it keeps us being real people.

Another form of objectification, I think kids and teenagers sometimes treat their parents and grandparents this way. They get a sense of entitlement and start to assume they're there for money and to look after them and forget that they're real people with feelings.

People in the work place can be objectified by their employers, I am sure the same goes for married couples each way if one person earns and the other stays at home. It's really any situation where someone degrades you down to an object status. Purchasing sex for example by definition is objectifying because you're purchasing time with a human to do what you want. Strip clubs are objectifying. Rape is objectifying. Modelling is objectifying. Treating someone like a personal wallet whether, boyfriend, girlfriend, parent or sibling. It could be a hen party treating cute guys like strippers. People often feel objectified in the service industry, I think especially waiting staff, I found I was treated in a more humanistic way when working behind a bar.

I don't believe there's a person around who isn't guilty of objectifying someone at one point in time. You can also consent to being objectified, and that's ok. It's when people objectify others against their will that it's a seriously shitty thing to do. But we do live in a culture with lots of consensual objectification so I can understand where it comes from.
For example in my teens I my experience with young men who read lads mags growing up would often making horrific and unnecessary comments to women in public about their looks. They've grown up in a culture where objectification is ok and are too young or stupid to understand the line where it stops being socially acceptable. Or maybe they've just never been taught that a line exists. I wonder in some cases if this is why some young men rape but don't see themselves as having done anything wrong. They just don't see that they crossed a line. This is where a culture of objectification merges with what is called "rape culture".
Culture is fascinating, it controls what we see as being acceptable without even realising it. Deniers of cultural impacts are usually the people so ingrained within that culture's social norms that they can't see anything else. It's why it's always good to critically evaluate your beliefs as to whether they're actually what you believe or what you've essentially been brainwashed to believe your entire life.
Click to expand...
I don't have access to the full article anymore (dropped out uni years ago), however any university library access has a PDF version of it, have you ever read "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" by Laura Mulvey? It's kinda old, but still very interesting, thought provoking and relevant, I hope.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful!
Reactions: SophiaSophia, Gen and IsabellaSnow
Dan Epstein said:
I don't have access to the full article anymore (dropped out uni years ago), however any university library access has a PDF version of it, have you ever read "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" by Laura Mulvey? It's kinda old, but still very interesting, thought provoking and relevant, I hope.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's really interesting. I am just looking into her now. Obviously it's a bit outdated in terms of modern times. And psychoanalysis is pretty much a load of crap. But it's interesting looking at how even though times have changed so much, the media still has this representation of women being the beautiful side character (even in story's and magazines where the woman should be primary) and men are the main character.
 
@IsabellaSnow I like how you compared the different types of mags. It really drives home how much of a confidence issue seems to be backing up so much of it as well.

Men have magazines that either show men or women in vulnerable ways to I guess make the reader feel more dominant. Women on the other hand, it seems often want both themselves and their partner to feel confident.

I feel things like catcalling and well, anything related to sexual objectification are pretty much tied to people feeling that if they are mainly folks who have had issues with achieving intimacy. Friends talk them "Just go up and talk to her! If she doesn't like it say it was a joke! (otherwise known as Schrodinger's douchebag where the person is dead serious until the other person shows offence) You're a nice guy. Who wouldn't like you? She's just a dumb whore since she said no then" and they assume "taking charge of the situation means they have to make a woman switch gears, even assuming she was in a good mood she has to let sink in what he said, and since the attraction likely left the second the guy embarrassed her publicly he only gets butthurt when she tells him no. To top it off the guy has likely never encountered women "complementing" them that way so they think the woman is rude.

Many people get taught that it's immediate reward they should be looking for and do things like looking for hookups with anyone and everyone they encounter. They assume it only has to work once, but if they'd simply apply themselves to being decent at showing they're more than a guy who wants sum fuk, who has a personality, something going for him and similar interests they might not only be hooking up (if they do at all) with those with low confidence that they'll likely not be with long.

There are so many options out there in most areas where a person can have similar interests without being a butting in asshole.

Join a class, volunteer (chances are they're not a gold digger lulz), check out local events.

Ok, and for serious. Let's say the person do just wanna bang. Either get on a dating profile and say that, or check out local sex scenes. Chances are you can find events/dungeons through fetlife.

It amazes me how people haven't figured out so many of these options in this day and age, and ask camgirls where they live and if we'll meet up. If none of that sounds good then sorry, but it's a big world with a wide web of internet. Chances are you'll have better game and more confidence if you invest time in the right avenues, rather than annoying people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WickedTouch, Booty_4U, SaffronBurke and 1 other person
Ann_Sulu said:
otherwise known as Schrodinger's douchebag where the person is dead serious until the other person shows offence
Click to expand...
This, oh my god I had no idea it had a name but this! Probably one of the most annoying things someone can do: "Hahahaha but of course I'm joking! Unless.... You're like, interested? No? Hahaha I am still joking!"

I think in regards to magazines it's often aimed towards what will sell. Women's magazines have a lot of advertising for make up, clothes and various other purchases you just NEED to buy! Often aimed towards what men will find more attractive but also how to impress their own gender. Men's magazines are often filled with cool gadgets, cars and propaganda about how to become successful and what they need to buy to do so. Lads mags have those things too but it's often got bits on how to sleep with women (usually the worst advice ever). The assumption with men's magazines is that women will flock if you become the man they project. In men's magazines that's usually a bit more positive, while in lads mags it's essentially the beginners guide on how to become a rapist (legitimately studies on quotes from these magazines couldn't be told apart from quotes from convicted rapists).

The objectification comes in because while it's all about the consumer industry, one magazine is telling readers to forget about their other interests and focus on their looks and ability to attract the opposite sex, which is completely objectifying. In the men's magazines with the strong role model who has interests, while a silly stereotype, the man isn't being treated as an object because it's largely about his interests and talents away from his sexuality.

It's really sad that this happens, I stopped reading women's magazines years ago because I felt they made me change as a person. I felt more shallow when I read them, more obsessive about my looks, more obsessive about how men/boys portrayed me. I also felt it encouraged me to be really manipulative with men and they offer some truly terrible advice. I only picked them up every now and then anyway but I definitely don't think they made me any happier. They didn't ever encourage me to be successful in the workplace or work hard in school. When they talked about hobbies it was on hobbies men like and how you can get better at them.
Personally I don't think any of these gender based magazines are good for anyone to read whether male or female.

As Ann mentioned in some of her examples, there's definitely a culture with lots of men who are encouraged to objectify women. Often in pretty casual environments. I've got a lot of male friends and often in conversations about girls someone mentions something that's very objectifying towards the woman they're looking at. It's seen as banter. An example is my boyfriend works in a bar during the weekend and his work friends were going on about "that girl in that dress was so hot!" and they'll all agree, I ask what they looked like and all they can say is "big boobs". Except for my boyfriend who thought they were talking about someone completely different and could only recollect she wore glasses. It's fine to check people out, I do it all the time. But often in workplaces it can be a bit predatory. My ex worked in a supermarket and they would communicate with each other when a hot girl walked in so they could all check her out. The female staff didn't ever do this with cute men who walked in. Cute men are nice to look at, but there is a line where it goes from appreciation to sexually objectifying.
This banter is often portrayed as complimentary to the woman. Some men for example have no sympathy for women who get catcalled a lot because they feel they should be flattered. Same with some women who never deal with catcalling, I've heard some women actually feel jealous that they aren't being sexually harassed and objectified.

Recently someone shared on twitter a rant by a guy on why it's not attractive for women to go to university and get a degree. He said it's not unattractive but it's not attractive with a little speech about why which isn't really important for my point. He did what I have seen lots of men doing, which is turning something like a degree and assuming it's done to make you attractive to men, and not just any man. To him. I see this quite a lot where a man will chime in his two cents to tell a woman he doesn't find what she's doing attractive, as though she would care enough to base her decisions around the sexual preferences of a man she does not know or like. I've read a fair amount of completely uncalled for speeches where a pretty unattractive man will list why women today aren't attractive to him.
"10 things I hate about you" has a good quote when Health Ledgers character goes to Kat and asks how she's doing, she answers "sweating like a pig!" to which he responds "that's attractive" and she sarcastically says "My mission in life!"
We live in a society where we are so used to women not only being objectified by others, but actively participating in their own objectification, that we feel entitled to it. People feel entitled to a woman being attractive to look at, and show shock and rudeness when the woman doesn't want any of it.

I believe a past excuse was that women were "the fairer sex" which made it normal to view us in this way. But looking at Gay magazines proves that when men are attracted to men they enjoy the same kind of sexual objectification as straight men do with women.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SophiaSophia, WickedTouch, Booty_4U and 3 others
I think the fact that people pay me 8 dollars USD a minute to look at my pussy often without ever speaking to me or interacting in any way during the show is a clear indication that yes it is real.

At least in this case it's consensual objectification but non consensual definitely exists as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: a_haze420 and Nordling
Is there anything wrong with non consensual objectification?
 
IsabellaSnow said:
I don't believe there's a person around who isn't guilty of objectifying someone at one point in time. You can also consent to being objectified, and that's ok. It's when people objectify others against their will that it's a seriously shitty thing to do.
Click to expand...

But sometimes you don't have a choice, you can't help whether you objectify someone or not. If you see someone hot walking down the street and think to yourself privately "Wow they're hot, I'd love to hook up with them" that's a form of objectification... When you start treating someone like they're an object for whatever purpose then that's wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: justjoinedtopost
Alex_M_21 said:
But sometimes you don't have a choice, you can't help whether you objectify someone or not. If you see someone hot walking down the street and think to yourself privately "Wow they're hot, I'd love to hook up with them" that's a form of objectification... When you start treating someone like they're an object for whatever purpose then that's wrong.
Click to expand...

This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't really count that as objectification. Objectification would come if you started harassing the hot person or commenting on how much you'd like to fuck them to your friends in a degrading manner. Objectification by definition is to degrade someone to the status of being a mere object. Thinking someone is hot and wanting to have sex with them is not really objectification because you're still considering them a human being and treating them as such by not just taking what you want from them. Thinking that person is hot and having zero care for their personal choices or freedoms by harassing them, touching, catcalling or raping them would be where the line into sexual objectification comes in. Because to you their sexual body is all they are, or at least all you care about.
So I guess the question is, when you see someone hot, do you see them as an inanimate object in the same way you might see a really nice meal, or do you still register that they are a human with their own being?
Attraction does not equal objectification. If you went out with someone for looks, were using them for sex and had zero interest in their personality then that's objectifying. And pretty arsehole behaviour IMO. But initially being attracted to someone for looks is completely normal and natural.

It's why I say that I don't feel camming makes me feel objectified, because part of camming is having a personality and being a real human being. It's sexual, but the humanistic nature of a site like MFC removes a lot of the objectification. Obviously there are those who objectify women on that site, most of them going into the lounge looking for free shows, but if one of the reasons you're visiting a girl is because you love her personality then the objectification disappears. It's why I say stripping is objectifying, because your personality barely comes into it, there is no bond. They will get what they want, as will you and you'll both move on afterwards. Strippers are incredibly objectifying towards customers so it goes both ways.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful!
Reactions: Booty_4U, Ann_Sulu, Gen and 2 others
IsabellaSnow said:
This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't really count that as objectification. Objectification would come if you started harassing the hot person or commenting on how much you'd like to fuck them to your friends in a degrading manner. Objectification by definition is to degrade someone to the status of being a mere object. Thinking someone is hot and wanting to have sex with them is not really objectification because you're still considering them a human being and treating them as such by not just taking what you want from them. Thinking that person is hot and having zero care for their personal choices or freedoms by harassing them, touching, catcalling or raping them would be where the line into sexual objectification comes in. Because to you their sexual body is all they are, or at least all you care about.
So I guess the question is, when you see someone hot, do you see them as an inanimate object in the same way you might see a really nice meal, or do you still register that they are a human with their own being?
Attraction does not equal objectification. If you went out with someone for looks, were using them for sex and had zero interest in their personality then that's objectifying. And pretty arsehole behaviour IMO. But initially being attracted to someone for looks is completely normal and natural.

It's why I say that I don't feel camming makes me feel objectified, because part of camming is having a personality and being a real human being. It's sexual, but the humanistic nature of a site like MFC removes a lot of the objectification. Obviously there are those who objectify women on that site, most of them going into the lounge looking for free shows, but if one of the reasons you're visiting a girl is because you love her personality then the objectification disappears. It's why I say stripping is objectifying, because your personality barely comes into it, there is no bond. They will get what they want, as will you and you'll both move on afterwards. Strippers are incredibly objectifying towards customers so it goes both ways.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with you really. I think I've always misunderstood the definition of the word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IsabellaSnow
  • Like
Reactions: camstory, ramblin and IsabellaSnow
IsabellaSnow said:
This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't really count that as objectification. Objectification would come if you started harassing the hot person or commenting on how much you'd like to fuck them to your friends in a degrading manner. Objectification by definition is to degrade someone to the status of being a mere object. Thinking someone is hot and wanting to have sex with them is not really objectification because you're still considering them a human being and treating them as such by not just taking what you want from them. Thinking that person is hot and having zero care for their personal choices or freedoms by harassing them, touching, catcalling or raping them would be where the line into sexual objectification comes in. Because to you their sexual body is all they are, or at least all you care about.
So I guess the question is, when you see someone hot, do you see them as an inanimate object in the same way you might see a really nice meal, or do you still register that they are a human with their own being?
Attraction does not equal objectification. If you went out with someone for looks, were using them for sex and had zero interest in their personality then that's objectifying. And pretty arsehole behaviour IMO. But initially being attracted to someone for looks is completely normal and natural.

It's why I say that I don't feel camming makes me feel objectified, because part of camming is having a personality and being a real human being. It's sexual, but the humanistic nature of a site like MFC removes a lot of the objectification. Obviously there are those who objectify women on that site, most of them going into the lounge looking for free shows, but if one of the reasons you're visiting a girl is because you love her personality then the objectification disappears. It's why I say stripping is objectifying, because your personality barely comes into it, there is no bond. They will get what they want, as will you and you'll both move on afterwards. Strippers are incredibly objectifying towards customers so it goes both ways.
Click to expand...
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/empowered-vs-objectified/
 
Guy said:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/empowered-vs-objectified/
Click to expand...
So this silly little cartoon is supposed to help people figure out how they are supposed to "feel" about any given representation? Good Lord.

There has to be a simpler explanation.
https://nomoremisandry.blogspot.com/2015/04/debunking-feminist-theory-of-sexual.html
At its core, feminism is a double-think/speak/discourse, supremacist ideology of forced equality, chivalry and political correctness which will ultimately strangle free speech if society as a whole does not reject it.
Click to expand...
There we go. Makes a hell of a lot more sense.
 
To be fair to the topic at hand, one cannot forget that the world is made up of a myriad of different beliefs and cultures, where the practice of treating another person as if they were "born" into serving a certain role is subconsciously fostered without much thought about it being "wrong" or "politically incorrect". To illustrate this, look no further than the sinking of the Titanic, where men dutifully died as women and children were allowed first on the precious few lifeboats that were available at the time of the accident. This was in 1912, so carefully consider the culture that existed then and fast forward to 2012 when the Costa Concordia accident saw men pushing past women and children in order to get to the lifeboats first. One has to wonder if this is how women want the men of today's world to act in such situations or even apply this type of thinking in everyday life. My point with this is that the men of the early 1900's had a certain mindset about women and children, and whether or not the objectification that existed then is the same type of objectification that exists in today's world. If a man steps in front of his wife to protect her from a robber, many would say that he has objectified her to a level of being weaker and not able to defend herself. Others would disagree and say that he was fulfilling his role as a "man" and doing what any man should do in such a situation.

I'm really looking forward to the day that the great classic The Wizard of Oz is remade with a woman who appears from behind the curtain - with her subtle vulnerabilities and all. In that sense, I think many would believe that the curtain hides more greatness than it projects. But the greater question would be: Would she have to be beautiful for it to work?
 
  • Like
  • Helpful!
Reactions: camstory and justjoinedtopost
Guy said:
@justjoinedtopost What do you think of this video?
Click to expand...

Well, it's her opinion I guess, based on what she has seen.

She really focuses on women latching on to feminism due to insecurity. Maybe that is true for some. Maybe not for others. There may be some who do it because they are busybodies, or control freaks, or power hungry. Some I think are just indoctrinated zealots. Who knows what other reasons.

She does make a good point about the objectification though. Why the f*ck do we need to view the "entire" individual to enjoy looking at them? Pretty much the only reason I can think of is to give feminists another chance to play the victim.

Here is something else. Never do I remember looking at a woman in real life with lust (that is all this "objectification" garbage is) and thinking of her as an object. Never. It was always an animal of the same species that my brain had an interest in mating with. So where do some people get off f*cking claiming to know what was going on in my head?

When I see a feature that I am drawn to, legs, ass, complexion, eyes, smile, whatever...and focus on it, am I no longer aware that I am looking at a human being? Well f*ck no. It is bullshit.

I used to work at a grocery store. There were a few times a really good looking woman came in, me and a co-worker would run up to the security booth and check her out from behind the one way glass. Was there any harm done? None whatsoever. Should I have run out on the floor and sought consent prior to my ogling? What a stupid, non-reality based idea!

I have had a couple of automobiles and a tractor I felt moments of fondness for. Silly I know, but I attributed a feminine quality to them for whatever reason. I thought of these machines as female to a degree. So does this too demean women in some way? I have no doubt you could find a few who would be simply outraged at the idea. Why, I bet they could spin college educated yarns all day long about the oppression I was foisting on thier sullen little cult, and even do studies and come up with statistics to prove it!

Not really talking smack about all feminists here, just a few of the more deluded voices I have read/listened to lately.
 
  • Like
  • Wat?!
Reactions: camstory and Booty_4U
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Chaturbate Is Hateful
Replies
16
Views
1K
General Cam/Creator Chat
isee0000000
I
Lyllla
  • Locked
do you guys think
Replies
20
Views
1K
Ask-a-Model!
Dan Epstein
Dan Epstein
piercedcock78
    • Hugs
  • Locked
Thank You
Replies
15
Views
721
Random Chat
piercedcock78
piercedcock78
C
  • Question
banned from site
Replies
1
Views
161
Chaturbate
punker barbie
punker barbie
A
  • Question
My account is mistakenly suspended from broadcasting in CB
Replies
1
Views
72
Chaturbate
punker barbie
punker barbie
Top Bottom
Back