1) nothing is "always" a problem. no safe thing is "always" safe. Universals are *always* (grins) best checked at the door.

2) Men sexually objectify women because men are in power. This is a chicken & the egg thing, to some extent. Men are in power because they have and continue to make women mere objects unworthy of being people in thier own right - regardless of whether they are protected objects or abused objects, they are still objects. On the other hand, because women are objects, they do not retain the power to stop being objects. and, since they are objects, sexual ones, they empower the objectifier. who knows what comes first or second.

3) men are now being objectified by women. but this is again, BECAUSE women are stepping into self-assured ness, and power in thier own right. Only with empowerment, can you objectify anyone.

4) "among het folk". interesting you say that. do gay men objectify other gay men more than gay women objectify other gay women?



In general, i think it's a bad thing until it's brought under control. when everyone is somewhat equal, then objectification is a natural, even kinky part of our sexual identity. no one has the time to get to know every lover they have, or every body they lust after. raw rich lust over someone simply cause he is hot, is a good thing. but when there is such an unequal balance, it's neither momentary nor "fun", nor individualistic. "that sexy brunette" is not just objectified once, but as a collective.

that's a problem.

there is a lot going on here really. first is sexual objectification; second is objectification based upon gender and third could be objectification period. i think the thread so far has opened the possibility for healthy, sexual relationships between people that may or may not objectify (open to a good debate). i wonder if the issue at stake is not so much sexual objectification (which may be due in part to how we have constructed "desire") but rather the objectification of gender. the difference between the two being that at least someone can rebuke a sexual advance (in most cases) and establish an identity in a different way after clearing the air, but gender objectification offers no outlet. We cannot change our gender to shift the power dynamic (we can be ugly men, i guess). It strikes me worse when men think that they can objectify women simply because they are women, not because they might desire them.

there is a lot to say about desire and power that is better left to another time.

objectification happens. it may not be possible to escape or avoid. we cannot possibly see the world in its totality all the time. maybe sadhus can but not the rest of us. left with that we have to keep our relationships in fields that are not fixed or oppressive. the game is wide open for play.

i don't think my taste in women is what is considered our popular notion of beauty but women are BEAUTIFUL! and i tell them so because they like it. women are raised to like being beautiful (for better or for worse) and we can do a lot to change that...but in the meantime, i practice respectfully and politely encouraging women feel beautiful and sexy when they are around me. there is nothing wrong with that. perhaps i too am raised to enjoy it? this is not about gender it is about sex and desire. although gender can certainly be played with most of us aren't going to change gender (although i love and admire those that do) . instead we can play with the dynamic of desire in an unobtrusive way. when women know it is not a pass (how about that for 1970's!) and feel it is genuine it really makes them smile...and if i ever find my self in a room full of happy women i am happy- if i am in a room of pissed off women vigilantes i am even more happy (and aroused :) .

the question of subject and object is too convoluted and messy. neither pure subjectivism or objectivism are possible for most of us; we play in the lands in between. make the most of it.

a side but related topic is the male bonding that is expected to go on in the process of objectifying women. this is where the danger lies, when men get into packs. and i can't tell you how many times (thousands) i have been expected to chime in on the classic opressive comment about a woman passing by. it is not so much to put the woman down at this point (which happens as a side effect) but rather to bring the men together (a strong case can be made for latent homoeroticism here if you want). one of my favorite games (and why i think i was born actually) is to disrupt this little game that men play. as a man it can carry a mean punch if you rebuke the other men involved in the game. i have a hundred different ways to call them out on it and it is entirely enjoyable to do.

and who objectifies more, men or women? humans do.

one more side note and a point of frustration related to this topic. why do men get away with wearing jeans and a t-shirt while women transform themselves into goddesses before going out? why are we men so grubby and such poor dressers? come on guys, doll it up a bit! you will either comply or realize you don't like it and quit expecting women to do it- either way it will at least be more balanced (my libra moon).

great thought provocation...