“SamSeaborn, objectification means that’s what you think the woman is for, and in a broader sense, that’s what women are for. Admiring the attractive beauty at the coffeeshop doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It occurs in a cultural context where women’s first priority is supposed to be appearing attractive to men; where there are only very narrow avenues for refusing male attention; and where women are seen as female (with their attractiveness reflecting their value) first and as human beings second.”

Of course it occurs in a context. But the context I experience is not ‘objectification’ in the way you seem to define it. Yes, the context is sexual - if I weren’t sexually interested in women I suppose the amount of women I’d admire for purely esthetic reasons would be lower. No doubt. But to me that doesn’t define anything about “what women are for”. I don’t see that there’s a cultural context in which a woman has more of an obligation to appeal to a women than I have to appeal to women. Narrow avenues for refusing “male attention”? Well, I would agree as far as observation is concerned, with respect to interactions those avenues are pretty wide, in my opinion, much like you described it with respect to the male gay interactions.

“and where women are seen as female (with their attractiveness reflecting their value) first and as human beings second.”

Well, humans come in two main versions - females and males. When I see a human being, in most circumstances I will identify the gender at the same time. The thing is, Mythago, women are beautiful AS human beings - not prior, not after.

“But they don’t live in a culture where one group of people is expect to be the ‘attract-ee’ and to respond warmly and positively to any social interaction that is not explicitly a threat, and where continued social contact escalates the investment. (To put that latter into English, it means that if a man flirts with me, and it doesn’t end up where he wants it to go, he feels that I have been a ‘tease’ and a bitch.)”

Wow, we really do live in different worlds. Have a look at the place I came from. It’s called “approach anxiety” (see above if you are wondering what feminism had to do with it). There are so many guys who are so damn afraid of just talking to women, let alone expect them to respond warmly…

http://approachanxiety.com/?p=223

(just one example I randomly picked)

“Vague signals? Do you mean subtle or did you intend to use vague? I think there is a world of difference between the two.”

Yes, I agree, but subtle signals are often affected by a problematic signal to noise ratio, so what may have been subtle with intention will come across as vague.

“Plausible public deniability? I’m not quite following you here. What do you mean.”

I mean that opening up entails risks and that using vague signals offers the opportunity to withdraw if the intended person did not pick it up but someone else did. “Did you just wink at the guy at bar? No, I just tried to decipher how much the wine is…” (that kind of thing).

“There’s nothing wrong with admiring a woman’s physical beauty or attractiveness as long as one is appropriate and non-threatening. I would agree with that.”

Then we have no disagreement :)

“Empathy is a very important component of human interaction, which I think a lot of people miss. Of course, they want it demonstrated towards themselves, but do not reciprocate.”

That’s a very true and wise observation. Still, it’s best not to loose hope…

“Women fear men, and for good reason. That is not to say that all men are rapists (please don’t hear that)…Men need to earn their trust.”

There is a fine line somewhere in that statement. There is a statistical reality, and it would be bad to deny that. But this is the kind of thing that made me think of my sexuality as a bad thing - this statement is true, of course, but it would be infinitely more powerful if it did usually end there - “men need to earn their trust” - but if it elaborated a bit about *how* that can be done *while* being sexual and not threatened by oneself - that’s basically what the discussion with JW above was about.

“I don’t believe responsible “sensitive” individuals are valued in our culture.”

No they aren’t. We have to deal with that, I suppose…

Contrast mainstream heterosexual culture with gay male culture. Gay men are expected to look at one another. But there’s a very open protocol for it. There’s no obligation to take another man’s attention as flattering, or as an opening for further social contact whether or not you want it, or as a setup where he is supposed to judge your appearance but not vice versa. The object of the attention is free to refuse it–in fact, immediate and clear refusal is considered appropriate, and the admirer is supposed to take the rejection clearly.

Which is not to say that gay men are saints. But they don’t live in a culture where one group of people is expect to be the ‘attract-ee’ and to respond warmly and positively to any social interaction that is not explicitly a threat, and where continued social contact escalates the investment. (To put that latter into English, it means that if a man flirts with me, and it doesn’t end up where he wants it to go, he feels that I have been a ‘tease’ and a bitch.)

Reading someone else’s emotional responses can also be used in a positive way… of course, with great power cometh great responsibility, and not everyone knows that and/or behaves that way.

I agree,although strictly confining it in terms of manipulation (it’s very destructive). Generally speaking those people who are able to read emotional responses are often termed “sensitive” and I mean this in a positive way as in awareness. Those people will often behave responsible, if they are empathetic. Unfortunately, I’ve met few people who conduct themselves in an emotionally responsible way towards others. Manipulators, can also read emotions and they exploit emotions and situations to win or to gain power over someone or situations. I’m thinking of two books on the subject, In Sheep’s Clothing, by George K. Simon, Jr. and Emotional Blackmail, (When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You, by Susan Forward…Both are great for different reasons, yet I think the first deals more with covert (veiled) aggression which is often the vehicle used for interpersonal manipulation. I don’t believe responsible “sensitive” individuals are valued in our culture.

I doubt that’s limited to women. Confidence busting experiences will make everyone afraid of risking rejection again.

True and that, of course, would have to do with how often a person is jejected and how they are rejected. People often get mixed messages and experience inconsistent behaviors. I’ve had a lot of people react strongly towards me, but I’ve found it very confusing. I’ve learned that most comments people make are about themselves, even when it feels it’s about me. It’s no fun being projected on.

Although I still think that’s more of a problem for men, as it’s easier for women than for men to use vague signals that offer plausible public deniability in the case of rejection - to oneself because the signal may not have been understood, and publicly, because the signal can easily be discounted as “no signal”.

Vague signals? Do you mean subtle or did you intend to use vague? I think there is a world of difference between the two. Plausible public deniability? I’m not quite following you here. What do you mean. I can’t think of instances in my life how this with work as I think I’m a very clear communicator. I also know that I’m a very subtle person (this characteristic) has been observed by others, who I feel offer credible observations. A person who is subtle is often viewed as shy, although that is another generalization. A subtle person is not appreciated in an in-your-face, aggressive culture like ours. More often, it’s seen as a character flaw and weakness.

No, I would not like a man yelling from a car anything. I don’t like being stared at either–it borders on creepy and can be unnerving, although intimidation evokes anger. I think most men know this and author, Gavin de Becker wrote about it in his book, The Gift of Fear. I can think of only one time when a man stared at me and it did not cause discomfort, because I knew he was appreciating me. I don’t much care for the locker room as I find it kind of demeaning. I’ll leave it at that.

There’s nothing wrong with admiring a woman’s physical beauty or attractiveness as long as one is appropriate and non-threatening. I would agree with that. The trouble is that I find that many men are not very good at subtlety and I think are more concerned with impressing other males and gaining their approval and using a woman’s looks to do so, rather than truly appreciating a woman and valuing her for who she is. Empathy is a very important component of human interaction, which I think a lot of people miss. Of course, they want it demonstrated towards themselves, but do not reciprocate. One has to always remember that a woman with beautiful legs is a person with feelings and that is where the focus should be, except in more intimate private moments. I can think of times when a man stared at me and apologized for starting…I recall what he said and how he said it and I was flattered. He said he hoped that it didn’t upset me…Well, I was flattered, but yes I was concerned and troubled, but that is partly due to my own experiences too. Women fear men, and for good reason. That is not to say that all men are rapists (please don’t hear that)…Men need to earn their trust.

“Well I’ve never met any men who view it as you do. In my experience they sexualize immediately. In your case, you sound like you’d be fun to flirt with.”

I hope I am ;), and I also hope you’ll find someone who’s fun to flirt with.

“Negative experiences like that added to others, can make women leary of rejection as well and afraid to make the first move.”

I doubt that’s limited to women. Confidence busting experiences will make everyone afraid of risking rejection again. Although I still think that’s more of a problem for men, as it’s easier for women than for men to use vague signals that offer plausible public deniability in the case of rejection - to oneself because the signal may not have been understood, and publicly, because the signal can easily be discounted as “no signal”.

“People who are adept at manipulation and using others are adept at both and reading the emotional responses of others.”

Reading someone else’s emotional responses can also be used in a positive way… of course, with great power cometh great responsibility, and not everyone knows that and/or behaves that way.

“these are intimate and generally not shared with others or yelled out of vehicles.”

I don’t really see how that contradicts my suggestion to “keep the biscuits” to the locker room where people understand what’s meant. And yelling from a car doesn’t much more acceptable by using “I think you’re hot” instead of “hey biscuit!”, or does it?

““How would I admire someone’s sexual attractiveness without objectifying it? I don’t think that’s logically possible.”

This subject came up with a man friend the other night. I do think it’s possible to appreciate a woman’s innate sensuality without sexualizing and objectifying her and I agree with the points Faith has been trying to make. Some men do get this and still others pose a much harder case….”

Well, sure on the level Faith seemed to argue on that is possible. But not on the one I was thinking about: If I sit in a coffeeshop and a long-legged beauty marches in and waits in the line, I admire her beauty (in a socially appropriate, non-threatening way - no staring and salivating ;)) like I would admire a beautiful painting, unless, of course, I would like to begin an interaction). That she is a women makes admiring beauty partly sexualised, of course. And she will logically be an object of my admiration as long as we don’t interact (or are living in a quantum-sized world where the Heisenberg rule has some impact ;))- if we do she will become a subject in our interaction. I’m never sure what feminists actually mean when they object to ‘objectification’ as ‘objectification’ is a logical way of dealing with everything that’s not a ’subject’ in our individual world. So objection to “objectification” must, as I see it, have something to do with what is considered the appropriate amount of consideration/empathy given the person for admiring, say, long legs - whether/to which extent it’s considered ok to just admire the long-legged beauty’s long legs for their (if sexualised) esthetic sake without at the same time considering long-legs-owner’s feelings?

I’m not disagreeing….no misunderstanding. I was just offering personal experience.

“Flirting isn’t necessarily sexual, in my book.”

Well I’ve never met any men who view it as you do. In my experience they sexualize immediately. In your case, you sound like you’d be fun to flirt with.

“Kids are cruel sometimes. Smiling is an important element in body language. It’s a sign for “non-threatening” (but sure, knowing that you can turn it into a trojan horse).”

Negative experiences like that added to others, can make women leary of rejection as well and afraid to make the first move.

I know smiling indicates approachable, but I think it deceptive, along with charm. I’m not saying that all people who smile are being deceptive here–it’s more complicated than that. People who are adept at manipulation and using others are adept at both and reading the emotional responses of others. I know these are qualities that one can find in both sexes.

As for pet names of lovers…these are intimate and generally not shared with others or yelled out of vehicles. I see your point, but I also agree with faith. I probably wouldn’t feel flattered to hear someone yell out, “Hey..nice set of biscuits.” I would feel demeaned and would want to cuss and swear, along with appropriate “sign language”. And yes, a good southern biscuit has very pleasant characteristics–for a food source. I woudn’t even dare retort with “Hey,…man meat,” because I know, at least with the men I know that it would result in their puffing up their chests…and I’m certain they would take it as a indication of sexual interest.

“How would I admire someone’s sexual attractiveness without objectifying it? I don’t think that’s logically possible.”

This subject came up with a man friend the other night. I do think it’s possible to appreciate a woman’s innate sensuality without sexualizing and objectifying her and I agree with the points Faith has been trying to make. Some men do get this and still others pose a much harder case….

“In the second instance, you are reducing her to an object.”

Actually, that’s not quite correct if we agree that the person saying so doesn’t ACTUALLY think the woman IS a cookie but is COMPARING the trait he thinks she possesses to the characteristics of an object with what he believes are pleasant characteristics. Where do you draw the line for metaphors here? Is saying “she’s a dream come true” objectifying in your understanding, “she smells like a rose” or “she’s a real treasure”? And what about pet-names lovers invent for each other? Is “honeybunny” sexist because it compares the person to a fluffy animal? In the end objectification isn’t the criterion you can object to because it’s such a common way for humans to conceptualize, and if you’re saying biscuit is sexist because it’s a “demeaning objectification”, then it’s back to matters of taste and linguistic coding and why it should only be used in a context where there’s no risk of it to be misunderstood.

I just reread your statement. I’m actually now not really sure if you were intending to disagree or agree with me. If you were in fact agreeing with me, I’m sorry for misunderstanding.