Am I Being A Prude, Or Overly Sensitive?

[Dana1010]

@Kaia, no way to be safe between a bullet and a target.

 

[somerandomguy]

Also, I'm not bashing men anymore than evolutionary psychologists

@Dana1010: You're assuming that behavioral evolutionary psychology, especially when it comes to sexuality, is accepted and mainstream. It isn't, not by a longshot. But hey, it's just another tool in your mind to prove that men are animals and only women are evolved beings, am I right?

 

[Dana1010]

to prove that men are animals and only women are evolved beings, am I right?

I'm sure that there are some rude strategies that women use for choosing mates--I saw data collected from dating sites showing that women think 80% of men are below average.

 

[Eleanor]

the standard feminist narrative

??????? As a pretty active feminist since the early 1980's I've gotta say that unless this is some "term of art" of a particular discourse (like "standard American diet") I have no idea what this means. The idea that there WAS (or even, god forbid, ought to be) a "standard feminist narrative" has always been deeply suspect among all the feminists of all stripes I've ever known. There does seem to be a gravitation toward a position of non-violence by most people who work on various aspects of social justice and healing, but how they work this out varies wildly.

Evolutionary psychologists (and Wright is an economist and a game theorist, Pinker is actually a linguist and cognitive psychologist he just writes on evolutionary psychology among like, everything else in the known universe) like Buss are pretty controversial. And ALL of the stuff evolutionary psychologists have to say about human sexuality is ... pretty underdetermined by the evidence frankly. E.O. Wilson jumped in a while ago, and everybody has been merrily splashing around in the pool since. Wilson is the bomb on ants, on people... not so much IMHO. Lots of heat gets generated in these "debates" but so far not so much in the way of light. Tons of theories, very little in the way of evidence.

no way to be safe between a bullet and a target.

I am not following this metaphor at all... who is the bullet? What is the target? If you are being misinterpreted (and I have no idea whether you are or not) I expect it is because you choose to express yourself in really very blaming, aggressive, and violent terms.

it is to point out how skewed our collective thinking can be as a society. We don't live in a society that idealizes the human body, what we idealize is sex.

Amen. And shallow impersonal sex at that.

 

[Dana1010]

The idea that there WAS (or even, god forbid, ought to be) a "standard feminist narrative" has always been deeply suspect among all the feminists of all stripes I've ever known.

I well know this--it was term of art. However, I would say that most feminists think that the virgin/whore dichotomy is an arbitrary social construct that can be erased.

no way to be safe between a bullet and a target.

It means that social sanctions against sex work (the bullet) are a powerful force, and you are are standing in its path to said target (sex workers). Hope this helps.

 

[Ronin]

@Kaia, no way to be safe between a bullet and a target.

You're wrong.

Even if we weren't talking 'safe', there's often safe-r. There's minimizing risks. There's making movements that are smarter than others. There's precautions and protections. You're just choosing to ignore all of it to form a statement of 'it's impossible to be safe in that area so I'm going to ignore experience of everyone who says otherwise and I'm going to preach everyone should stay away regardless of what they want to do or need to do for a living.'

Just because you're not having experience in it and aren't interested in changing your views doesn't mean your experience and views on this are relevant and true.

 

[Kintsugi]

I didn't read all 100+ responses, but it looks like this discussion is blowing in a lot of directions, so I'm just going to respond to your first post, @RussH.

The deindividuation brought on by objectification through all manner of media is real, for sure, but I take issue with your line of thinking. You say that the picture makes you sad because it is dehumanizing, objectifying, and is a draw to make money selling magazines.

You go on to say

It really breaks my heart that this magazine will give guys the idea that it is ok to treat women as objects of desire. How many women will be subject to crude statements, sexual innuendos, and in appropriate touching just because Sports Illustrated wants to sell magazines?

The above gets just a tad too far away from personal responsibility for me. Systemic, cultural forces are absolutely mammoth agents in the creation of individual behavior, and yes, media outlets are a big contributor to this effect, but I cannot shake feeling there is an echo here of the thinking that goes "She wouldn't have been a victim if she hadn't been wearing that."

My experience with modesty and womanhood has been shame. Crushing, sickening, toxic shame. I'm looking at these swim suit photos from Sports Illustrated right now, and all I feel is envy. Not envy because I don't think my body is that perfect, because I want that hair, that waist, etc. My envy stems from seeing women who I perceive to be comfortable and unashamed of showing their bodies. My head is always rattling on to me: behave, don't draw attention to yourself, you can't wear that outside, cover yourself up... on and on and on. And I'd say these nagging, perpetual accusations come from a place of fear that by being comfortable in my skin, I am inviting abuse to my doorstep.

I think this is such a hot topic because while women contribute to the cultural objectification of women, their contributions (particularly in this form--consensual bodily exposure) receive a disproporionate amount of attention and gravity. At least, that is how I see it. There are obviously a lot of complicated forces at work in this discussion.

 

[Dana1010]

@Kaia, no precautions they take will save them from sociological damnation. Put "porn star" on your resume and go try and get a job.

 

[Nam]

Well said, Simon!

 

[somerandomguy]

@Dana1010: Still waiting for your apology.

 

[Dana1010]

@somerandomguy, I believe in the first amendment, so it would be very disingenuous for me to apologize for expressing what I believe. If you were upset or triggered by anything I wrote, that certainly was not my intention. If you personally disagree with me, that is your right and I respect it completely.

Best to you.

 

[RussH]

but I cannot shake feeling there is an echo here of the thinking that goes "She wouldn't have been a victim if she hadn't been wearing that."

@Simply Simon I just want to clarify that I, in no way, consider that a woman deserves unwanted attention because of how she dresses. My only point is when some men see women dressing in a provocative manner then, the men, thinks it gives the permission to say or act in an abusive manner.

When we as a society think we can dehumanize, or objectify a person, or group of people, then we don't have to treat them as people.

I don't know if you have ever heard of the Tuskegee airman, but it is a celebrated group of African-American WWII pilots that trained in Tuskegee Alabama and were made famous most recently in the movie Red Tails.

Well there is another story from Tuskegee that is not so good. I group of African- American men were purposely infected with VD so that the Doctors could study the effects of the disease on them. Why did the medical scientist think it was ok to subject these men to this kind of treatment? They had dehumanized them and turned to into an object that was not human, therefore they could do to them as they pleased/
It was wrong, but this is the end result of objectifying people.