Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If at age 15, I pursued sex with a male person, and I enjoyed myself, and wanted nothing more than that, and we parted ways both perfectly content...why was I a victim of anything, when I certainly did not feel like one?
Who are you to tell me that my feelings of freedom and empowerment from exercising my own agency, were a lie, and in reality I was a powerless victim? Why?
Why did the boy "win" something and I "lose" something in that interaction?
Because I could have become pregnant? I was on birth control that was very effective for me. There were no likely or actual negative consequences. Because of my reputation? I had worked hard to create one where I was rather intimidating, and I did not care what anyone said or thought anyways. We did not, and do not, live in an archaic reality where a girl must hold herself chaste or be "ruined."
My mother tried that line on my when I was still a virgin, though. She told me I should try to keep my virginity so that better men would marry me, that no handsome, rich men would marry me if I wasn't one. That made me feel disgusted and objectified FAR more than having sex did. It made me feel like cattle, not a person.
And for me, that's the real difference between what is, and is not, objectification. Person. Not a person.
To me, a person feeling sexual interest or desire for me does not make me feel like less of a person. In fact, I've had some of the most enjoyable intellectual conversations, with men who clearly had an interest in me that way. But just because they want, does not mean that they are entitled to get.
The construction of morals around women's bodies and appearances, THAT makes me feel like less of a person. THAT feels objectifying to me. The idea that I need to guard a man's property (my body) by carefully hiding it, by conducting myself in life with a constant worry that another man might see me "the wrong way."
"Who are you to tell me that my feelings of freedom and empowerment from exercising my own agency, were a lie, and in reality I was a powerless victim? Why?"
"Who are you to tell me that my feelings of freedom and empowerment from exercising my own agency, were a lie, and in reality I was a powerless victim? Why?"
I'm not aware that I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
The mental filter thing is what I've been thinking about while reading this thread. I've seen it many times in women. But I find it complicated to put into words. This will probably be a fragment of what would take us all a long time to pinpoint before it could be discussed.
From my interpretation it's as though the woman transposes herself into the male's mind and observes from his perspective. And in her play-acting is taking intense pleasure in observing herself. But it's not her pleasure - it's his.
I don't know how clearly that explains. Another instance which is very common is a woman having a favorite song that is actually a male song sung to the female object of his interest and when she sings or listens to it it is as though she is the male figure singing it to herself. But she experiences it as the receiver. It meets a need. But it's a fantasy. And passive, vicarious pleasure.
These are both pleasant and perhaps esteem-boosting fantasies but they are occurring in a trance state and it's very important, especially for young women, to be able to recognize the truth of that because there is an intense seduction there, a trap that can make a woman believe she has power that she does not have in the kind of way she believes she does.
We really can't strive for male sexual power when we're female, mimicking what we think will make him/us happy. Or make us into powerful temptresses. That's not power. Actually it can set women up for victimization because it's not reality.
It's wholesome for a woman to be able to ask herself, "Who exactly is performing? Who exactly is enjoying? And why?"
I was a staunch Second Wave Feminist who has survived the rigid fundamentalist storm of that movement and it has softened, actually feminized me with strength over the years. But I am very unhappy with the Third Wave's interpretation of Feminist Power. Like so many things in our altering society it appears self-destructive to me.
These things take time to "cook" and every generation seems to need to learn anew from its psychological mistakes. It remains to be seen how this group matures.
^ You are talking about women feeling sexually powerful, as the subjects of a man's desire, being a falsehood we tell ourselves and setting ourselves up for victimization.
Granted, I have not been any kind of a dancer...I am a clumsy person, I respect and envy strippers and sexy dancers because I know I'd just fall and break my skinny white backside if I even tried some of these moves.
But when I have (in other contexts) spoken about one of two times in my life I was really enjoying my sexual freedom, which is when I was a teenager, I have had feminists tell me that what to me were enjoyable sexual encounters, were actually rape, because of my age, for instance. And they make a little frown of fake sympathy and shake their heads, like I'm delusional and don't know what happened "to me." No, they can take their own narrative and shove it. They were not there. I was.
And they are projecting, from their own POV, their own morality, whatever it is, something bad on what was for me at the time, GOOD. Trying to twist it and warp it and gaslight me into "admitting" that I was a victim, when I was not.
Maybe, despite calling themselves feminists, these women can't abide the idea of a woman having the power enough to enjoy her sexuality...if a man is involved, he's in power automatically?
I don't even know. But I don't like the idea of uninvolved outside persons telling someone that how they feel about their experiences is a lie they tell themselves, like oh, let me tell you how you really feel about that. Let me tell you how you only thought you were having a beautiful experience, but in reality it was exploitative.
That's why I'm so annoyed about this whole thing, honestly, and I rarely get prickly feeling like this in a subject around here. It's the gaslighting. It's the idea that judging third parties have more right to tell a woman how to feel about herself, than she has. Like how about anyone ask one of these booty shaking dancers how it makes her feel, and then just believe her?
Oh, no, we need to find out more about the "male gaze,"...is it objectifying? I don't know, what do the MEN think?
(During the course of this post I'm straying from a direct reply to you into explaining a general position. My irritated tone is more a general thing, based on lots of stuff. Your comment alone does not merit this vociferous a degree of pushback...and I want you to understand that I'm not specifically antagonistic at you, just...this...kinda this whole dang thing, if that makes any sense...)
"Includes," yes, but here we are talking about women specifically and their sexuality, and not some "universal human values."
Quote:
Not sure how sexual empowerment works in practice in the real world outside of feminist theory.
OK, let's go over it step by step.
"Feminists" - that's people of European descent.
How "sexual empowerment" of women works in non-European countries, I am not sure myself quite honestly - all I can see it works differently. The way that Black girl dances Kizomba, the way she uses her backside to signal "sexuality," would be considered vulgar among the Europeans I guess ( precisely for the "carnal" message of it,) but she is dancing with a Black man, her ORIGINAL audience was not supposed to be Europeans, so obviously, where she is from, it's not considered "vulgar" but rather normal, and if this normalcy is "carnal" - then that's what it is.
You might be surprised, but my approach to women "sexual empowerment" is actually closer to your beliefs than to beliefs of modern American feminists.
If women meant to rule over men, it can't be done through the "carnal" means, but the spiritual ones.
That's where their TRUE sexual power comes from.
Quote:
But if it's "I'll degrade myself before you even show up, boy, and I'll be the better man" in some sort of "keep your eyes to yourself, sonny, until I tell you" revenge plot for the ages, the result won't be any different than the power women's bodies have always had over men. Already have.
Whether women are waltzing or flaunting "the prize."
Not sure I understand you here.
Quote:
My first response was to your earlier post that seemed to imply that the woman dancing in ball gown was somehow less as a person than the women posing as sexual warriors.
Oh no-no, that was a misunderstanding.
I'd never think anything like that.
I was only pointing at the fact that women from different cultures are different, and they can't be measured with the same yardstick.
The mental filter thing is what I've been thinking about while reading this thread. I've seen it many times in women. But I find it complicated to put into words. This will probably be a fragment of what would take us all a long time to pinpoint before it could be discussed.
From my interpretation it's as though the woman transposes herself into the male's mind and observes from his perspective. And in her play-acting is taking intense pleasure in observing herself. But it's not her pleasure - it's his.
Its about a level of self awareness and awareness of human nature. Not allowing yourself to be deceived, or expecting something when you shouldn't.
^ You are talking about women feeling sexually powerful, as the subjects of a man's desire, being a falsehood we tell ourselves and setting ourselves up for victimization.
Granted, I have not been any kind of a dancer...I am a clumsy person, I respect and envy strippers and sexy dancers because I know I'd just fall and break my skinny white backside if I even tried some of these moves.
But when I have (in other contexts) spoken about one of two times in my life I was really enjoying my sexual freedom, which is when I was a teenager, I have had feminists tell me that what to me were enjoyable sexual encounters, were actually rape, because of my age, for instance. And they make a little frown of fake sympathy and shake their heads, like I'm delusional and don't know what happened "to me." No, they can take their own narrative and shove it. They were not there. I was.
And they are projecting, from their own POV, their own morality, whatever it is, something bad on what was for me at the time, GOOD. Trying to twist it and warp it and gaslight me into "admitting" that I was a victim, when I was not.
Maybe, despite calling themselves feminists, these women can't abide the idea of a woman having the power enough to enjoy her sexuality...if a man is involved, he's in power automatically?
I don't even know. But I don't like the idea of uninvolved outside persons telling someone that how they feel about their experiences is a lie they tell themselves, like oh, let me tell you how you really feel about that. Let me tell you how you only thought you were having a beautiful experience, but in reality it was exploitative.
More broadly speaking, people will either rationalize or demonize a behavior with religious zeal to fit their own, overarching narrative. They fail to realize that one behavior exists on its own merits.
If my bike is stolen from my garage, and I haven't ridden the bike in 10 years and don't plan on it in the future, and am not harmed by the loss of the bike, that doesn't make the person that took it less of a thief than if I relied on it to get to work.
With interpersonal relationships, it gets murkier, but the same tenets hold.
If you posit that the religious based and European (of course, not ONLY European, but you're putting it out there as where all the good things come from) sourced ideologies are universally right and should be the standard for all people...modesty, denial of carnality, the sexuality of women as a temptation to sin for men, and so on, can I ask you why not go all the way with it? Why not the very extremes of Patriarchal iron fisted modesty imposed by some Middle Eastern cultures, where women must be kept in compounds, and chaperoned and covered head to toe in swathing fabrics if they ever leave the safety of the home? Your argument posits female sexuality as the very thing that makes us property, and that only by denying it and being spiritual, can we be anything else. Because if we are desired by men, we shall be the property of men?
I kind of believed something close to that when I was in an abusive relationship. There was no joy in my sexual life then, and it was a wretched existence. I explained in an earlier post that I considered disfiguring my face, and that I wore baggy clothing and tried to be unappealing to men, because I had accepted that if men wanted me, they did not see me as human, could not respect me, and that doing anything that might invite male desire, made me a bad person. I kind of hated myself, and I did not want to be touched by anyone.
You sound a lot like I did then, except that I was not religious. Never have been, never will be. So any of your "worldview" that is rooted in that, isn't something I can accept. And although I cast those views upon myself, I was not as judgmental of other people as you are.
But I'm free of all that now. And while yes, there is a time and a place, I absolutely and definitely enjoy being part of a flow of desire and sexual interest. I have no particular issue with men "gazing" so long as I feel that the environment is a safe one, where any of them who thinks that they are entitled to do more than gaze, will be dealt with. I'm grateful for those environments. It does feel very liberating and good.
But ultimately why I recoil so hard from your position, is that it is the thinking of a colonialist, that your idea of "civilization" SHOULD be the right way for all humans to exist. I loathe this "One True Way" mindset that demands that all other cultural standards must be subjugated. By violence if necessary. Many religions have preached it and pushed it, which is one reason I have always rejected religion. It is repugnant to me, it is why a bunch of people would go enslave, convert, and take from indigenous peoples all over the world, enriching their masters while thinking that they're saving those poor savages from "sin." I would argue that their bloody hands are the greater "sin" by far.
There is nothing inherently noble about that pompous and self righteous posture, destroying the lifestyles of others who live perfectly happy lives, chaining them to pious misery in the name of "salvation." And trying to demolish one of the great natural joys of living in a human body is part of that authority structure's war for control, telling people that it's noble to suffer and slave away, sure it is. Like that "worldview" is not anything other than useful for those in power. You take away all of the joys that people can have for themselves and tell them that the only real joy that is allowable is devoting their lives to being good members of the herd, the flock, productive for their masters.
No. I will never be on board with that. That's a hill I would fight and die on, as many have before me.
So no, there IS no universal human condition where sexuality = debasement. Only in your mind. And thankfully, you don't get to control everyone. People like you have tried, but never totally succeeded, despite many being quite willing to kill anyone who disagreed, throughout history.
See bolded above.
Sonic, your views and life experience are, as you freely admit, outliers and hardly mainstream.
More importantly to this discussion is your misunderstanding of my position regarding human dignity and that dignity having universality for the human spirit. That doesn't at all mean to imply there is ONE way to do things and that way originated in Europe and should be imposed on the world by force. There is nothing I said that comes close to that. I was responding to your comment that delicacy and flirting were Euro-centric (not sure that's even true anyway) in a slightly put-downish way. When in reality the ideas and actions of women's rights began mostly in Europe, which is a more accurate reflection of my observation at the end of one of my posts. That's another topic anyway.
Never said that there should be a denial of sexuality in women or otherwise, why do that? Sex also is part of the complete human experience and the way the species reproduces. My point was there is more to our experience than sex but some don't seem to want to strive for more. Yes, there is the physical but there is also the spiritual aspirational part of the human personality that is just as important for a full and complete life.
As far as my being judgmental, you are being judgmental of me and showing a lack of understanding of what I'm saying in the first place. My concern is for young women not to do to themselves what they claim to detest and fear men doing to them. Like if they do it first that makes it okay.
Ignoring the next two paragraphs that have nothing to do with the thread topic or what I said.
The last paragraph though: You know nothing about me and to suggest I would kill people to impose my view is beyond the pale, beneath you and really should be reported.
And thankfully, you don't get to control everyone. People like you have tried, but never totally succeeded, despite many being quite willing to kill anyone who disagreed, throughout history.
Many (not necessarily you) being quite willing to kill through out history. Is that wrong? I think not.
And thankfully, you don't get to control everyone. People like you have tried, but never totally succeeded, despite many being quite willing to kill anyone who disagreed, throughout history.
Many (not necessarily you) being quite willing to kill through out history. Is that wrong? I think not.
The word YOU is in there and is over the top and incompatible with the T&Cs of City Data.
"(not necessarily you)" is not in the statement.
I am mostly simpatico with sonic on this topic, so for ME, I'd say "If it feels good to ME, and I'm not hurting anyone in the process, I want the freedom to do so. I want to do it safely, without acid being thrown in my face. Without being raped by a gang just for stepping out of my home without a chaperone. I want these things for ALL women, and I don't want it to be a man's prerogative to decide what I do with my body.
I don't want for ANYONE to be endangered because of what she wears or doesn't wear. Who she smiles at, or doesn't smile at. Who she shows cleavage to, and who she doesn't. I don't want to be subjugated for being female. I'm TIRED of the idea of good girls and bad girls, meant to keep us in line somehow.
I want to enjoy sex and be able to say so without being shamed for it. I want to CHOOSE who I have sex with, without being forced to marry someone twice as old as me...like so many young girls and women are, around the world. I want for all of us, autonomy. In a legal sense, we've come a long way. And we've fought every step. But in a conceptual way, we still have to slug it out.
I want women to have the freedom to learn and the freedom to make mistakes if necessary, for themselves.
And...I want EVERYONE to have the freedom to disagree...EVERYONE. But not to the point of hurting me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
