The phrase "treating women as objects" is fairly common. What do you think it means exactly?

I sometimes treat women as sex objects. Sometimes I don't. How does this put them in worse standing then men.

If you are a guy sometimes I care what you have to say. Sometimes I don't. If I don't I'll ignore you. That makes you nothing more than an object to me, though a nonsexual one.

If you are a girl, sometimes I care what you have to say, sometimes I don't. In the latter scenario, I'm much more likely to listen and put up with it if I'm attracted to you. That makes you nothing more than an object to me, a sexual one.

How does adding attraction into the mix somehow make things degrading to women?

I'm going to try and keep this short, because I could rant all day on this subject, if you want to be more in debth I will.

Basically, the masculine urge to control and dominate things is extended over people. This of cource is bad in itself, but also is the beginning of a mindset that veiws others as "objects" or less than people. Once that framework has been established, almost any atrocity can be justified.

basically it means what the words say.. it means you are thinking of a woman as an object, something you want to use.. I'm like this.. gotta say.. when I fuck a chick I dont want to think of her as a person all so much.. I want to fuck her without even thinking about that at all.. that would be one example.. there are more hard core cases like the last guy stated.. and it can certainly be applied beyond women.. i would actually hope that the girl i end up with objectifies me to a degree and i will certainly have to objectify her to a degree as well.. i value aesthetic beauty and those that do.. however i dont think there are standards just opinions and perceptions.. but i think it should be important to people.. funny i think objectification of things is important when others view it as a plague.. fuck those other people.. altho yeah i suppose it literally is a plague as in the nazi kkk muslim extreem.. but nowadays their bullcrap is fear and unfounded superiority complex. i think in an overcrowded world these should be the first to die.. the fullest extreem to anything is a poison.. funny almost like water is poison at high enough doses, and it is the essence of our function.. sorry for the bullshit but i dont really care either..

i do what i waunt..

I don't like treating women as objects, but the vast majority of them seem to ask for it. =/

Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man.

SO what does it mean to care about someone as a person? I can't tell if I'm just an asshole and objectify everyone or this whole thing is really over dramatized and I'm a nice guy all around. Either that or I'm just in the mood for a semantics argument.

On the subject of using people, I'm cynical enough to think that any interaction is based off using people. That doesn't mean it can't be a symbiotic relationship.

For example, I hang out with my friends because I "use them" for enjoyment and laughter. They enjoy my company for the same reason. I'd say it is only okay to think of people as object, if you think of yourself as an object too.

if you care you care.. thats it.. i wouldnt get into it so much (altho this has to be semantic in order to assign care a quality).. i havnt cared about anyone especially for a long time now it kind of makes me sad.. there are a thousand and one.. scratch that maybe infinite ways to care about somebody if you get into details.. some are moral, more in a love ideal.. a relationship ideal.. some are more in a selfish way of thinking.. id say if you are caring in love/relationship/moral ideals then youre doing it right.. if not.. as long as theyre not, its cool too.. messing with this can be cruel, and id say it goes beyond that.. you can ruin it for other people too.. creating ideas that are in the good of nobody cept nihilists.. when it all comes down to it everything is going to affect how lives are lead.. including your own.. and then later when you start thinking about how everything is shit.. maybe just maybe youll remember you were a part of it all.. you wanted a semantic argument, i wanted a philosophical argument.. haha.. actually it would seem semantics cannot be argued realistically without philosophy (I can further explain this conclusion if anybody cares.. I dont feel like it but id rather not get "huh"s).. so err we both win.. maybe what you wanted were opinions really, so that you can judge yourself through them, see if you are part of the popular conception.. if so thats weak my friend.. but what do I know about it.

I love the hypocrisy attached to the sex objects thing.

The times I have seen women dressed up in such a way that it screams "LOOK AT ME...LOOK AT ME...LOOK AT MY TITS HANGING OUT OF MY TOP!!!" and then she gets all pissy with me because I have glanced her way.

That's annoying.

^yesir

No offence psycho_8b, but that's because she's only interested in attention from attractive men...

This "sex object" concept is probably one of the most illogical concepts ever created. Not only that, I consider it sexism against men because it's basically attacking the visual, physical way men enjoy sex.

Just like you pointed out, I can think of such a broad spectrum on contexts where women and people are treated like objects but these feminists (and other women) could care less. There is even sexual contexts (like a lingerie catalog) that these feminist could care less about. If it's designed for male entertainment (like a sexy beer commercial) then feminists (and other women) WILL complain about it.

Now back to how men enjoy sex, intimacy is for women, not men. How can men enjoy sex in an extremely visual (I've read psychology studies to support this too) and physical way and not treat women like sex objects? It's impossible, those two things aren't compatible regardless of the context.