I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them.
If you don't see it by now you never will. Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to pull "studies" out of your hat I'll call you on it. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Finally, nature doesn't "dictate" anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Paul via phone > >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) >> >> But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt >the underlying premise. >> >> To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way >that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women >tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and >offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. >> >> People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that >women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. >> >> This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make >the world go 'round. >> >> A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... > >But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take >considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply >aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize >over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. >> >> Cheers, >> frank, back to spectating - for now >> >> >> Walt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a >sexual >>> being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- >is >>> a >>> false one. >>> >>> All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named >>> Susan >>> Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy >Griffith >>> Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by >>> just >>> how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the >bar >>> >>> happened to know her name. >>> >>> So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and >as >>> it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver >>> >>> Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just >>> drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make >of >>> >>> a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't >>> captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan >>> Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, >or >>> sexism, whatever you want to call it. >>> >>> But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I > >>> developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact >that >>> >>> my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't >in >>> any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman >>> any >>> more than learning more about her considerable achievements >minimized >>> my >>> appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. >>> >>> It “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
