Men's Group

Yes, there's a belief system constructed that objectification only happens to females. I already explained in different thread that women objectify men. And generally, until a guy shows he's worthy of attention, he's an object the woman doesn't want. I explain, and I don't resent it. I think it's pretty much the way nature meant it.

When we think of people starving 5,000 miles away, everyone sees them as objects, "statistics" is the term.

I don't agree that opposition to porn has to do with misunderstanding objectification. It's far too passionate an opposition to be generated by such an abstract psychological concept. No, I think they came up with objectification theory due to how they are wired sexually.

Sorry, when some people actually can't look at a picture of consensual intercourse, and they immediately react to it like a spider in their bathtub, that's not generated by reasoning out a concept like objectification. You wonder why some women's groups just couldn't go through Craigslist (or Backpage) ads every morning and report the ones that look like they're advertising children, it's because they couldn't stand to read the ads.

I've also noticed that Dworkin and other feminist who describe the content of porn seem to be making it up. Researchers come up with the wildest things about porn or the sex industry or strip clubs, and it's the worst thing because they're informing people who also don't watch or look at porn or visit strip clubs to form an opinion. Fact is, none of them can stand to do it.

When they get absolutely spiteful, as in threatening and trying to ruin the lives, of women in the industry who disagree with them and who don't support their narrative, that's not due to any abstract principle. The pseudo-scientific principle is just a pre-conscious way to rationalize the aversion and disgust they already have. If they didn't have objectification, they would come up with something else. Anti-sex industry forces in the early 20th century didn't have objectification theory. They were about as passionate as the opposition is now.

There's something defective about the term objectification when it applies to sex, abuse or any interaction. Men don't direct anger at just any object. Objects don't draw emotions--- generally speaking. You really can't have it both ways. If a man objectifies a woman, but in some way, is aroused by her, in some way, that woman is not an object to him. If there's abuse involved, he's doing it because it hurts her, not because she's an object.

Moreover, if he has commercial sex with her, or uses her image for sexual pleasure, those are something that an object can't fulfill. If he fantasizes about her image, he's injecting a different personality into her. Generally (and one would hope) one that consents to sex with him in the way he likes it.

That's not simply objectifying. That's injecting a different personality. In other words, that's taking an image and personalizing it.

Now that doesn't make the process sound any better, and I don't make it to. But it would more accurately describe what happens.

Either way, no, I don't think the objectification concept is going to develop so it works both ways. No, it will be discarded before the defect is corrected' and they will be using another pop concept.

I want to add: a lower sex drive doesn't imply apathy. If there's no arousal or pleasure, secondary emotions about sex become dominant. Those are not positive emotions. Sex has some very complex neuro-psychological effects.

I remember when I was 15 and I was first exposed to really graphic porn. That is to say intercourse and oral sex. I didn't feel immediate arousal. I felt nausea. I felt curiosity too.

I felt aroused only later. So I asked myself: what would my outlook on porn be if the nausea didn't pass and the arousal never kicked in?

Answer: I would be just as disdainful of it now as I was then, and feel just as much contempt for people reading it.