"Objectification" - Not A Serious Concept

[Deleted]

It's an interesting point. Unfortounately it's wasted on this cess pool of drooling morons that can't take in new ideas.

However there is a point where objectification becomes to much. I currently can't think of such a point for commitment (other than stalking / kidnapping). Maybe that some women expect to much from their partner while not providing anything themselves. That doesn't become quite as harmful though.

[Machismo]

The actual anti-fascists of WWII (not to be confused with the clown thugs antifa) who opposed real fascism and fought against it were also against gay marriage.

There's nothing libertarian about gay marriage. In a libertarian society the government doesn't care who you're fucking anymore than it cares who is your friend. It has no reason to keep a long registry of couples, no reason to acknowledge your relationship with another person. That's your business.

Great, people who died 70 years ago were also ignorant bigots... just like you.

You want the government to restrict gay marriage, thanks for proving my point about you.

In a libertarian society, people (the government) wouldn't care... so why do you?

[Deleted]

Great, people who died 70 years ago were also ignorant bigots... just like you.

You want the government to restrict gay marriage, thanks for proving my point about you.

In a libertarian society, people (the government) wouldn't care... so why do you?

You do realize that marriage is partly a welfare program for couples, right?

What a clown libertarian you are. A phoney through and through.

[Machismo]

You do realize that marriage is partly a welfare program for couples, right?

What a clown libertarian you are. A phoney through and through.

Then get rid of all marriage. Youa re actively supporting the restriction of thsoe privileges that you want to give to straight people, making you a hateful bigot and an authoritarian.

Now, let me know when you want to legalize gay marriage, then get rid of all marriage privileges entirely, including tax breaks (especially for having kids). While we're at it, let's get rid of all tax-exempt organizations, like churches. Equality under the law is a wonderful thing, it's a shame you don't think so.

You refuse to even do the first step.

[Deleted]

Then get rid of all marriage. Youa re actively supporting the restriction of thsoe privileges that you want to give to straight people, making you a hateful bigot and an authoritarian.

Now, let me know when you want to legalize gay marriage, then get rid of all marriage privileges entirely, including tax breaks (especially for having kids). While we're at it, let's get rid of all tax-exempt organizations, like churches. Equality under the law is a wonderful thing, it's a shame you don't think so.

You refuse to even do the first step.

Let's recall the original point.

You said that opposing gay marriage proves fascism. It does not. Please go read a fucking dictionary on what fascism means.

It also doesn't mean supporting borders.

[Machismo]

Let's recall the original point.

You said that opposing gay marriage proves fascism. It does not. Please go read a fucking dictionary on what fascism means.

It also doesn't mean supporting borders.

Yes, you want the government to take away something you want to give to others... all because they are gay. How very authoritarian of you.

[Deleted]

Yes, you want the government to take away something you want to give to others... all because they are gay. How very authoritarian of you.

Fascist and authoritarian are different words, different concepts.

I don't believe in taking anything away that is legitimately yours. Gay sex and cohabitation would still be legal.

The government just wouldn't be in the business of keeping a long registry of who's fucking who of the same sex. And for privacy reasons, it's probably better that way. I mean if I was an evil dictator who wanted to kill the gays, the first thing I'd do is legalize gay marriage to get them out of hiding first. Do you really want the government having a list of a good percentage of gays in the country?

[Machismo]

Fascist and authoritarian are different words, different concepts.

I don't believe in taking anything away that is legitimately yours. Gay sex and cohabitation would still be legal.

Fascists just happen to be one form of authoritarian, you just happen to be very close to full-blown fascist.

And yet, you don't want them to be able to get married in the eyes of the law. Why aren't you screaming to get rid of all marriage laws, and all the privileges associated with it?

That's right, because you hate gay people, and want to punish them.

[Deleted]

Fascists just happen to be one form of authoritarian, you just happen to be very close to full-blown fascist.

And yet, you don't want them to be able to get married in the eyes of the law. Why aren't you screaming to get rid of all marriage laws, and all the privileges associated with it?

And maybe there's a good argument for that.

Personally I would just suspend all marriage benefits if they don't result in a child within 5 years time. Procreation is the only reason government was ever involved in this. I don't think there's something fundamentally wrong with the government spending resources to ensure its continuity. One aspect of that is having people around.

That's right, because you hate gay people, and want to punish them.

I think gay people can't procreate with each other (which is a scientific fact fyi) and I think they make less than optimal parents and shouldn't adopt.

That's not hating them. I say the same about singles and I'm single. Do I hate myself?

Logic is not your strong suit. How does it follow logically that opposing a certain welfare program means you hate the people benefiting from that program?

[Machismo]

And maybe there's a good argument for that.

Personally I would just suspend all marriage benefits if they don't result in a child within 5 years time. Procreation is the only reason government was ever involved in this. I don't think there's something fundamentally wrong with the government spending resources to ensure its continuity. One aspect of that is having people around.



I think gay people can't procreate with each other (which is a scientific fact fyi) and I think they make less than optimal parents and shouldn't adopt.

That's not hating them. I say the same about singles and I'm single. Do I hate myself?

Logic is not your strong suit. How does it follow logically that opposing a certain welfare program means you hate the people benefiting from that program?

So, get everyone equal under the law, then get rid of it. Nope, you want people to be UNEQUAL under the law, because you hate gay people.

What makes them "less than optimal parents?"

[Deleted]

So, get everyone equal under the law, then get rid of it. Nope, you want people to be UNEQUAL under the law, because you hate gay people.

What makes them "less than optimal parents?"

For one thing the lack of a father or mother.


They are equal under the law. A homosexual male is not prohibited from marrying a female.

Not having an interest in such an arrangement doesn't mean you're excluded.

Nothing fascist about it. It isn't even hyperbolic, you just don't understand words.

[Machismo]

For one thing the lack of a father or mother.


They are equal under the law. A homosexual male is not prohibited from marrying a female.

Not having an interest in such an arrangement doesn't mean you're excluded.

Nothing fascist about it. It isn't even hyperbolic, you just don't understand words.

What if it's two women? Now, thanks again for making my case for me.

AHh, that's the ticket (they are equal under the law... because I'm stopping someone from doing something they never had any intention of doing in order to stop the people I hate). Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with your ignorance and bigotry. I'll go ahead and stick with the 14th Amendment on this one, thanks.

Yeah, you are going full fascist, thanks for making my case for me.

It's a shame you hate brown people and gay people so much.

[Raptor With a Saber]

It's often said that women are the gatekeepers to sex but men are the gatekeepers to commitment.

What is "objectification" (of women specifically)? It's nothing but a way to shame straight men because they find a woman sexy enough to fuck, but aren't necessarily interested in having a serious relationship with that same woman...

It is highly heterophobic first of all, I've never once in my life seen it used against gays objectifying men or lesbians objectifying women.


Women who complain about being objectified are pretty much the female equivalent of a male incel. Male incels think they're entitled to sex. Anti-objectification women think they're entitled to commitment. Male incels complain about the friend zone (i.e. a woman who wants to hang out with you but not romantically), anti-objectificators complain about what I like to call the fuck zone (being seen as a fuck buddy but not serious relationship or marriage material).

Now of course another thing both have in common is a total lack of self-reflection.

Men are not sex-crazed animals, they will respond with commitment IF your personality is good. So if you're only viewed as a "sex object" the problem is you, ladies.

ob·jec·ti·fi·ca·tion
/əbˌjektəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: objectification; plural noun: objectifications

1.
the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object


What if a woman said you were nothing more than a cock?

[tyrlaan]

Methinks this is the wrong place to try to have "constructive conversation" no matter how much research, and even proof, is provided.

He's right though. Many of the social problems women are having are mostly because they brought them on themselves. Men are committal, but also impatient. If a woman jerk us around long enough, we will move on. Unless he's a beta. If it happens multiple times, we will lose faith in the idea altogether. Which is where we're at now. Marriage rates are down. There are many complaints from many women about how men aren't even giving them the attention they "deserve". Most single women I meet have several things in common. Most of them have children. Many of them have more than one, some of those from multiple fathers. That's an immediate red flag. When you hear them talk about the father(s) of their children, there is almost always contempt and hatred. Another huge red flag. They almost always have no trust from the moment you meet them. Many of them are quite selfish. I could go on for days, but I think the point is made.

If your point was to demonstrate how much sexist crap you could spew in one paragraph, then yes you made your point.

Youre just a bad troll. Who even cares?

Sadly, I don't think Thunderaan is a troll and instead actually believes what he writes.

I've seen someone call him Thunderaan elsewhere. But I think Thunderaan had the 10 year member banner? /shrug

Either way, they're clearly quite "special".

Aye, its Thunderaan. I think he was on a ban holiday but came back within the last few weeks. Changed his name mid-conversation some time last week. You'll also notice that Machismo has kindly updated their sig to reflect this

[Santti]

Sadly, I don't think Thunderaan is a troll and instead actually believes what he writes.

Now that's just depressing.

[Deleted]

The idea of objectification is dumb. What if a girl is riding a guy? Does he become an object then, if he is lying perfectly still?

[Video Games]

If your point was to demonstrate how much sexist crap you could spew in one paragraph, then yes you made your point.



Sadly, I don't think Thunderaan is a troll and instead actually believes what he writes.



Aye, its Thunderaan. I think he was on a ban holiday but came back within the last few weeks. Changed his name mid-conversation some time last week. You'll also notice that Machismo has kindly updated their sig to reflect this

That doesnt mean he isnt trolling. Im sure he knows hes unpopular but goes on and on anyway

[Deleted]

What if it's two women? Now, thanks again for making my case for me.

AHh, that's the ticket (they are equal under the law... because I'm stopping someone from doing something they never had any intention of doing in order to stop the people I hate). Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with your ignorance and bigotry. I'll go ahead and stick with the 14th Amendment on this one, thanks.

Yeah, you are going full fascist, thanks for making my case for me.

It's a shame you hate brown people and gay people so much.

I don't hate "brown people". Such a group doesn't exist anyway. It's very racist of you leftists to think people with brown skin are one monolithic group that you could label.

FYI, I don't hate Mexicans, that's also a lie. What I hate are illegals who cut in line. They can be white for all I care, still scummy to migrate illegally.

[Machismo]

I don't hate "brown people". Such a group doesn't exist anyway. It's very racist of you leftists to think people with brown skin are one monolithic group that you could label.

FYI, I don't hate Mexicans, that's also a lie. What I hate are illegals who cut in line. They can be white for all I care, still scummy to migrate illegally.

I'm not the one whining about immigrants all the time, you should see about that.

Make them legal. I just solved their problem.

That's right, they are all scum to you... even though your forefathers did the very same thing... such hypocrisy.

I suppose you think Trump's wife is scum, also. After all, she broke the terms of her visa.

[Mistame]

The OP is conflating objectification and sexual objectification. The former refers specifically to the reduction of a person to less than human, ie, a mere object. The latter however, refers to the reduction of someone to an "object" of desire and does not inherently imply a less-than-human status, as "object" in this context means "target". That's not to say that one can't treat someone as less than human in sexual sense, but rather that such treatment falls under the general term of "objectification".

There is nothing wrong with "sexual objectification". It's human nature as attraction begins with physical aesthetics. Arguments about things like checking out a girl/guy without considering them as a person are infantile. There's no rational reason to consider who a person is if you're just admiring their physical attributes. The same can be applied to casual sex. As far as porn stars, etc, go, they're no more "sexual objects" than you are a "tool" at your job.