Why is it no one ever accuses men of reducing themselves to a "sex object"?

Question

whether from working in the sex industry, or simply engaging in casual, anonymous sex? When women do these things, people warn her that it's "degrading" because the other people don't really care about her as a person, but just see her as a "sex object" or are "using her." So how come we don't warn men about how they're "degrading" themselves, and mankind as a whole? Does this suggest that we give men a lot more freedom when it comes to their sexuality than we afford women? Do we consider men more capable of handling their sexuality and perhaps being what some people would consider more reckless with it?

I think some of you are missing the point. I'm not saying men in these situations should feel "reduced to a sex object", but rather, I'm questioning the whole "reduced to a sex object" argument itself, for both genders.

jonmcn: You kind of hinted at having an opinion without really revealing what that is. The purpose of gender studies is to discuss such differences and their possible origins, as well as their usefullness in modern life, not just vaguely suggest that unnamed differences exist. Would you like to try again?

Answer 1

I'm just thinking out loud here...

Your question is as old as Snow White. What DID Snow White do? Oh, yeah, she cleaned, cooked, croaked and some charming young man charmed the panties off her and they got married and lived happily ever after. Pretty passive, don't you think? Passive is bad, it takes one to aggressive behavior eventually. Assertive would be better. Yet this is what we teach our kids... and this is where this all starts.

Society is obsessed with woman's status. Is she married? Is she single (virgin)? Is she divorced? Just think of this example - man is always Mr. - complete whether alone or married. Woman can be Miss, can be Mrs. can be Ms... but why?

Forgive me for being blunt, but p-u-s-s-y is power to those women who know how to use it against those men who let their lives be ruled by it. Lisistrata is a great example - when Spartan and Athenian women got so sick of their husbands fighting that they told them they would get no sex until they stopped the war. Classic Greek comedy with a very clear message - "The man may be the head, but the woman is the neck!" (My Big Fat Greek Wedding)

And, there's the law of supply and demand. Men want it, they make more money, so they have to pay less fortunate women to get it. The kinds of men who go to strip bars and whore houses have problems being around women in the real world because they are afraid of them (fear of the unknown - which is very curable).

We've been called the second sex, the weaker sex, the fair sex for too long. It's time we give credit where credit is due. We're the stronger sex because we aren't afraid to meet a man and fall in love. That's why most of us don't go to male whore houses or strip bars. Supply and demand at work again.

If you really want to go back in history I recommend "When God Was a Woman". You will understand why, for two thousand years, women have had to suffer due to some supposed sin some Eve committed. Of course, Lilith came first, but the Bible killed her and her myth.

Before Judaism (and Christianity), women were considered equals to men - sex and all. So, you ask why; the Bible, that's why.

Answer 2

Probably goes towards the quality of the sex they are having. If one half of the (assuming 2 people) party is banking their chip's but the other is thinking about the weather, then the latter is a sex object as oppossed to a loooove maker.

So in that regard I dont think their is anything wrong with being a sex object, might not be preferred but at least your 'at' the party.

Some people believe that when having sex you connect spiritually with the person in a long term way that is generally inpercievable - some form of soul relationship is formed which remains for quite a while. So if that were true then having sex for cake but not the presents could be considered muddying your spiritual energy and therefore degrading of your true inner purity. I personally do not have enough experiance to support that but would be happy to undertake exhaustive research on it :)

Answer 3

The notion of an 'object' implies passive participation in the act. The 'object' is the receiver of an action from the 'subject.' The man is f(*#ing the woman, not the other way around. Therefore the woman is the one who is being objectified.

I think the closest comparable phenomenon in the reverse direction is when women compete with each other over the worth of the man they're with. In this case each woman has "caught" a man... Therefore the woman is the subject, the actor, the one who did the catching... And the man is the object.

And I think you do hear men complain about... The complaints just aren't seen as particularly noteworthy. The general opinion is that, since men don't have to deal with the glass ceiling and aren't generally expected to take an equal part in child-rearing, they should darn well shut up and accept the fact that they're regularly viewed as 'breadwinning' objects.

Answer 4

As I said in your other thread, I also wonder why nobody complains about males acting as slaves in BDSM porn where a female dominatrix is doing grotesque things to them.

Let's face it. People think all guys are sexual beasts and that it's a reward for them to be having casual sex, being a porn celebrity, etc, etc. I think people rely on the evolutionary theory and will say that men can't control themselves at the sight or thought of a sexual woman, while women don't care if they see a naked male porn star (which isn't true).

I don't think some people on yahoo especially can accept that women can be just as sexual, that women can use men as sex objects, etc. What disappoints me is when other women think this way. I can see why an uniformed teenage boy may think that some women can't enjoy casual sex or something wild and kinky....but how can other women accuse us of not liking these things and how porn is only a man thing?

Answer 5

Good question. I'm a stripper as well and yeah, when I'm at work, maybe some (neanderthal) customers view me as a simple sex object. But I also view them as a monetary object-they're not "people" when I'm at work, they're walking ATMs. When you go to a restaurant, do you look at your waitress and go "oh, she must be such a nice person! I wonder what her hopes and dreams are"? No, you don't care, you just want your food. You're viewing the waitress as an object there only to serve you your food. What's the difference?
"Does this suggest that we give men a lot more freedom when it comes to their sexuality than we afford women?" Oh yeah. The strip club is a perfect example. Remember a few years ago when a college student was expelled for being a stripper because a group of guys from her school saw her there? Yeah, those guys weren't kicked out..it was OK for them to go to the club but it wasn't OK for her to work there. ::bangshead::

Answer 6

Because they're seen as the ones that prey on sex objects. And if we were to call them sex objects... they most-likely wouldn't take offense to it. I feel as though it's more accepted for men to have sex with whoever, but that doesn't mean I think it's okay. Everyone should have respect for themselves.

You're right... the way men act these days is disgusting, they all seem like pigs, they don't realize that they really are degrading mankind.

Answer 7

I have in the past told men who abuse women not to lower themselves, and that such behavior is unmanly. (I used to work with sex offenders and other human-service populations.) I believe this is an equivalent to the case you offer above. Both concern the perversion of a primitive power that one sex has over the other being put to desperate use, often because of the lack of other, more appropriate, civilized empowerment skills.
___I think that men hear less of this because this approach is too sympathetic. The custom in America is for the society to want to shame male abusers as much as possible, regardless of whether it accomplishes any rehabilitative function. But it is not the same for women who exploit their sexual powers.

Answer 8

I think it's not quite accurate to say that no one thinks of men as reducing themselves to "sex objects." There are men who definitely do this, and it's not any less demeaning for them as it is for women.

I guess what it comes down to is this: we have the freedom to make choices based on our own personal beliefs and sets of morals or values or ethics. What we choose for ourselves is something we must live with. What feels comfortable or right to one person may be wrong or distasteful to another. I don't believe in imposing our own beliefs onto others, as long as no one's getting hurt by our choices. (Including us!) We are all individuals, but our individual choices can and do affect others...including society. I just have to wonder, how often does the average joe think about society when making personal choices? Probably not very often. We tend to see things from only our own perspective. I suppose that's what comes naturally to most. What I'm suggesting is that we look beyond the scope of the here and now, and beyond ourselves, and see the bigger picture. It's hard to do this, sometimes.

Answer 9

Just ignore jonmcn - he belongs to the cult of 'Scientism' and gets confused very easily. You have probably noticed by now that he has 3 stock answers that he uses to answer any and every question - in all categories. Blustering and full of himself, he is a mindless robot.

"Does this suggest that we give men a lot more freedom when it comes to their sexuality than we afford women? "
Why YES, and it's always been this way. The less power the woman has in a society (as in Agrarian societies) the more repressive and the more restricted her behaviors, sexual and otherwise. Afghanistan would be a good example of an Agrarian society - it's not urbanised, and most people make their living off the land. Anyway, the sexual repression of women is just one piece in a much larger mosaic of sexism.

Answer 10

You do realize that men and women have an evolved heritage that effects their behavior in the world of here and now, don't you?

Sorry. I am used to speaking with evolutionary scientists who are cognizant of the evolved variation in reproductive strategies that carry men and women apart in their proximate behavior. Women in all cultures are seen as the " goal " of male reproductive strategy, to a greater or lesser degree. While women are seen as those who chose mates by being choosy. Both sexes were " designed " to compete for mates, just in a different way. A good popularization of this evolutionary concept would be, " The Evolution of Human Sexuality ", by Donald Symons. Not too technical and rather short of mathematical paraphernalia.
This rather applies to perceptions humans have. Not that a description of what is, is a prescription of what to do, but a " heads up " on cause. That distinction needs be made in this section.
By the way, scientists do have opinions, but this is not one of them. The work done here is quite empirically supported.

" cult of scientism??? " Spoken like a truly ignorant, relativistic, post-modern Canadian harridan. Keep it up and you will have to get a new account before the end of the weak, babushka.