Anonymous #1 10w

What if objectification never led to sexual violence or regular violence against women…. What then?

-3

Anonymous #5 10w

If my grandmother has wheels she would’ve been a bike, what then?

13

Anonymous #6 10w

I mean your childhood would’ve been a lot different if your grandmother was a bike

-2

Anonymous #5 10w

And I’m sure how women view lustful men would be a lot different if it never led to violence

10

Anonymous #6 10w

And what would the difference look like?

-1

Anonymous #5 10w

……am I a wizard or something? I assume if there was less ties to violence there might be a decrease in the amount of women who dislike being lusted over, but that’s not the only issue here. No one wants to be treated like a sexual object, which constant lust can often make us feel like. I mean what do you think it would look like?

4

Anonymous #6 10w

A lot more people having sex

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Clearly you put a lot of thought into that response.

1

Anonymous #6 10w

I mean, Id liked to think so

1

Anonymous #5 10w

What that less violence would automatically equal women like lust more? That’s really naïve

1

Anonymous #6 10w

Is it naïve or optimistic?… and if that wouldn’t get women to have more sex than what would?

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Dismantling of the patriarchy completely would most likely result in more sex. Again, it’s not only about the violence. I don’t care to be treated like a sexual object object for men, with or without the violence variable

1

Comment Deleted

0

Correct, more equality does result in more sex sometimes, however in this case, violence is not the only variable that would cause there to be “more sex”

1

Anonymous #6 10w

But what does it really mean to be treated like a sexual object? What’s the difference between liking someone and wanting to have sex with them, versus treating them like a sexual object? The line feels very thin, especially when violence isnt part of the equation

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Always wanting sex, not treating me like a person with my own feelings, not hearing me out, not changing behavior just having more sex to fix it, acting like I only exist for have sec with them, etc

4

Anonymous #6 10w

I don’t know that kind of sounds kind of arbitrary to me…. Some people just like a lot of sex.

0

Anonymous #5 10w

The sex isn’t the issue, the not treating me like a human being is the issue.

2

Anonymous #6 10w

Give me a scenario in which someone’s pursuit of sex with you overrides your humanity …. I think I’m having trouble picturing that.

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Ignoring everything I want out of the encounter and only focusing on yourself for one, which is treating me as simple a hole and not as a person with wants or needs. Again, this is fine for things like hookups that you’ll never see again, but in a day to day scenario or in a relationship it’s annoying af

2

Anonymous #5 10w

Disregarding the plans I’ve made or how I’m feeling, sick bad day etc, to beg for sex because that’s what you want, continuing to push after I’ve said no, things like that

3

Anonymous #6 10w

in this instance, is he respecting consent?

1

Anonymous #5 10w

In all these instances consent is being somewhat respected, outside of lies, like oh I’ll give head after you do, and begging

4

Anonymous #6 10w

I guess I should’ve asked in a more specific way… is there a scenario in which someone’s pursuit of sex with you override your humanity in a way that doesn’t concern sexual violence, given the fact that we were talking about sexual violence being removed from objectification

1

Anonymous #6 10w

So you’re enthusiastically saying yes

1

Anonymous #5 10w

None of these scenarios include violence

1

Anonymous #6 10w

Pushing after you said no is sexual violence

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Sure then, in the hookup scenario it’s enthusiastically given.

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Or this, enthusiastically giving consent, have sex, and then being ghosted, the man is rude, even calls you a whore and then says you were “only a hole to fuck”

1

Anonymous #6 10w

OK, so then forgive me for my ignorance …if it’s enthusiastically given then what’s the harm in them only wanting sex from you?

1

Anonymous #5 10w

I never said it was harmful, it’s annoying and puts me off from trying to have sex with lustful men. Frankly I also think it’s rude and who wants to be around rude people

1

Anonymous #6 10w

OK, I guess that makes sense, but what if it was enthusiastic, fully given consent, you had sex, and afterward the man texted you a couple of times to check in and say hi, then eventually stopped talking. In practice you were technically just, and I don't like the term "a hole to fuck," (even though he didn’t say that blatantly )but you were just sexual partners. So the question is in that case, is objectification still present?

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Depends on if it was a hookup or not. If I just met him for sex, the idea is that we meet up and then go our own ways. If I went on a date first and expected there to be more following, yes it would make me feel that way

1

Anonymous #6 10w

What would make you expect there to be more?

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Let me make this more clear. If I went on a date or two with a guy, we really hit it off, he goes on and on about wanting to date me etc, making me think that he wants to actually be with me. Then we have sex since I think “wow what a great guy, I can’t wait to see him more after this”, the he ghosts me or is rude/short with me when I reach out like I did previously. That tells me everything he said was a lie just to sleep with me. He didn’t actually care about anything i said that he in fact-

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Said was interesting etc, he only wanted to sleep with me. He only saw out of me what he wanted, sex, damn the rest. That in fact makes me feel like an object.

1

Anonymous #6 10w

And my question to that is…we’re dating expectations not spoken about beforehand?… and is the lie here that they were spoken about but he lied about that specifically

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Yes he lied about that specifically, talked about future dates, talking about wanting to be serious, etc

1

Anonymous #6 10w

And you think that wouldn’t happen in a more equal society?

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Yes I think so mostly due to secondary factors that trickle down. For starters, teaching more men from an early age that women are also people to consider. Along with the fall of media like fresh and fit that promote male lust and condemn female lust

1

Anonymous #5 10w

Does the objectifying women make more sense now or not

1

Anonymous #6 10w

Yeah kinda. I still think it’s kind of picky and choosey tho. But for the most part, I guess.

1

Anonymous #5 10w

How is it picky and choosy? Is it because women aren’t one size fits all? Not all women find the same thing offensive?

5

Anonymous #6 10w

The second one

1

Anonymous #5 10w

It’s almost like we’re human beings with different ideas of what is offensive to each of us. There’s no cheat code to what each person finds offensive in any aspect

3

Anonymous #6 10w

I get that but I just think sex or conversations about sex shouldn’t be offensive unless it’s a violation of consent…. I do see how it can get kind of muddy when there are false promises made tho

1

Anonymous #5 10w

I don’t think sex or conversations about sex should be offensive, the reality is that many are. I also think it’s extremely hard to comprehend what I’m saying when you havnt experienced the same. Once or twice you shake of, near constant objectification of women both in and out of sex is annoying. I don’t want want to deal with annoying lustful men who don’t see me as a person. At all.

6

That’s about cheating

0

Comment Deleted

0

“She’s for the streets” is literally about cheating

-1

In fact, a lot, if not most sexual shaming of women these days comes from people shaming women for cheating

-1

Anonymous #5 10w

See now now that’s crazy, she’s for the streets is about cheating, but “most” sexual shaming of women is not around cheating.

10

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Are you black?

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Phrases like whore, slut, ran through, hoe, tramp, skank, and promiscuous were used to shame women for sexual desire and activity... "she's for the streets" is to shame women for cheating

7

The phrase “she’s for the streets” is used to shame women specifically for cheating. Other phrases like whore, slut, ran through, hoe, tramp, skank, and promiscuous are used to shame women for sexual activity that isn’t specifically about cheating. “She’s for the streets”.. and I appreciate it if you did not tell me how to use AAVE

-2

Why are you using urban dictionary as a source for how AAVE terms are used?

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

If she’s in the streets, that means she’s not home…. Being home means being faithful…… that’s the history of the word you cannot use urban dictionary to define shit that a group of people use regularly in a specific way and context

-1

Anonymous #5 10w

That’s you use and have seen people use that word. I’ve seen people use that word in place of saying white or sometimes that’s the next follow up word. I’ve seen single women get called that simply for sleeping around. The original intention might be one way, but the way people use it now has shifted slightly

11

Comment Deleted

0

You cannot tell Black people with their term means

1

You cannot tell Black people what their term means

1

Anonymous #5 10w

It really just sounds like you know that the definition of words, especially these ones, can and have changed but don’t want to admit it

5

Anonymous #5 10w

AAVE is not a thing dawg, it’s just slang

-2