Um, this is related to another post that I made. Vote if you feel like it.



Um, this is related to another post that I made. Vote if you feel like it.
A fat chick is like a big, warm, comfortable pillow that you can also have sex with....
I don't personally see women as sex objects, but I think porn does...not only for women but men too. But it's all part of the fantasy. I think that most of us can separate the fantasy from the reality.





I've always been object-oriented in real life, fantasy and compuiter programming. Is that bad?
The whole concept of "objectification" is spin created by the radical feminists. It's an exercise in self-projection. That is to say, that's how they feel, so It's supposedly how men see women. It's insulting to men, as well as sexist, to say that we see women as "objects." It's really more complicated than that. There has been scientific research on the subject of beauty. A universal standard that cuts across ALL races and ALL cultures is a clear, unblemished skin and clear eyes. I'm sure any good stripper is probably aware of the power of an erotic gaze. The biological reason for sex is reproduction. Obviously, the male wants to select a healthy mate to insure the success of his genes. Youthful beauty equates to healthy in the caveman's eyes, he didn't have medical exams. Guys need to think about this in the reverse, that is, what women wouldn't you have sex with? Probaby one covered in chicken pox.
Men are suppossed to admire women for their beauty, thousands of years of selection have told them to. Yet, the radical feminists don't accept that sex is based in biology. They believe that's it's learned behavior that can be adjusted by social influences. In their view, the only reason that people are heterosexual is because that's the current societal norm which they can change. They are tying to do that very thing. Ironically, the most articulate critics of this are the equity feminists, such as Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia, and Christina Hoff Sommers. They realize that fucking with mother nature (or little boys heads) is a very good idea and causes more problems than it solves. They routinely get blasted for it as well.




Yes ,it objectifies women just the same as it objectifies men. Remember men a simply necessary props in a porno film. The only difference is that the men don't object (no pun intended) to it. The whole attitude is different between men and women. You don't see men crying discrimination because the female gets paid 5-10 times what he gets for a scene.





Apparently the radical feminists are way too busy selling t-shirts to lend their ear to an opposing viewpoint, as the following mindnumbing stupid website would suggest.The whole concept of "objectification" is spin created by the radical feminists. It's an exercise in self-projection. That is to say, that's how they feel, so It's supposedly how men see women. It's insulting to men, as well as sexist, to say that we see women as "objects." It's really more complicated than that.
Men are suppossed to admire women for their beauty, thousands of years of selection have told them to. Yet, the radical feminists don't accept that sex is based in biology. They believe that's it's learned behavior that can be adjusted by social influences.
Ironically, the most articulate critics of this are the equity feminists, such as Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia, and Christina Hoff Sommers. They realize that fucking with mother nature (or little boys heads) is a very good idea and causes more problems than it solves. They routinely get blasted for it as well.
http://www.oneangrygirl.net/
Hey, at least I didn't see them selling a "So Many Men...So Little Ammunition" shirt.
I'd love to see the owners of that website exchange links with Stripperweb. Oh would that not be entertaining!
[rotflmao]
Former SCJ now in rehab.
Bookmarks