fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4455 ]

[ SECRET POST #4455 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4455 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[The Umbrella Academy]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Doom Patrol, Crazy Jane]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Deathclaw Desu Ga!]

__________________________________________________

05.

[James Bond, "Goldeneye"]

__________________________________________________

06.

[The Umbrella Academy]

__________________________________________________

07.

[The Umbrella Academy]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #638.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I feel like lot of feminism demonizes male sexuality and coddles female sexuality. IMO sexual attraction is inherently objectifying, but as long as it doesn't affect how you treat living people there's no issue. I realize that it's overwhelmingly prevalent and more women centric and non sexual media would be welcome, but I feel like it's an issue of distribution rather than the act itself.

Sexual attraction is not inherently objectifying. Objectifying means seeing the other person as an object, as only their for your sexual gratification. And that for me is the exact place where it goes wrong. Attraction and lust are great. But objectification is the problem. And women can do it too, but I don't see it nearly as much.

gonna copypasta my reply: "Sexual attraction, to me at least, is romanticizing aspects of a person because you want to bang them. Objectification is the extreme form of this, but all sexual attraction has an element of it. There's other components to a healthy relationship and relationship based solely on sexual attraction is not a healthy one."

I just don't agree with that. Objectification is seeing another person as an object only there for your sexual pleasure. That's not what sexual attraction has to be. Sexual attraction is just another person peaking your sexual interest. Doesn't mean you see them as an object. You can be sexually attracted and still see the other person as a person.

It might of have been more prudent to say sexual attraction is the softer form of objectification, but I don't think the rest of your post is in conflict with what I said about objectification being fine as long as it doesn't affect how you treat real people.

I don't think sexual attraction is a softer form of objectification, though. I think they are two completely different things. And objectification by its very nature affects how you treat people. If you only see them as an object and not as a person, that is always going to effect how you treat them.

I don't really see how sexual attraction in itself is objectifying tbh.

Yeah definitely I don't think sexualization is bad in itself. But the reality is that we don't live in a world where sexualization is generally balanced by gender, and generally respects the humanity of the people involved. So when sexualization operates in a way that overwhelmingly portrays people of one gender and overwhelmingly portrays them in a way that's reductive and objectifying, it is a problem.

I disagree with your main premise: sexual attraction being inherently objectifying. I'm now wondering if you're confused on what objectifying is, or if you're just a creepy person. 50/50 odds.

To answer your title question, no. Being against the male gaze is not sex negative.

Sexual attraction, to me at least, is romanticizing aspects of a person because you want to bang them. Objectification is the extreme form of this, but all sexual attraction has an element of it. There's other components to a healthy relationship and relationship based solely on sexual attraction is not a healthy one.

It's a healthy one if all you both want is sex.

Fair, I should have left a caveat for fuckbuddies and one night stands.

As a bi female, I love the male gaze and would hate for it to go away. The solution is start doing it to men too, don't stop doing it to women.

The male gaze is more inherently objectifying than the female gaze.

How so and is it biological, cultural, or both?

Cultural. 110%

Testosterone has a direct effect on sex drive though. This can be seen with both men who have low sex drives and when transmaculine people start hormones.

Sure. But you can have a strong sex drive and not objectify. You can think about sex every minute of every day and still not objectify.

Do you think the male gaze is inherently objectifying then? And are there any instances you think it should be acceptable, say like porn?

No, I don't think male gaze has to be objectifying. That's just what our culture tells men they have to be. Maybe it is easier for men to objectify because they get turned on easier. But they don't have to objectify. they can view a person as both someone they are sexually attracted to and yet still a separate person with their own personality, needs, and desires.

And I don't think porn has to be objectifying either. Women in porn are just objects there to titillate men, but they don't have to be. There is porn out there that is equal opportunity and that treats women like human beings.

"There is porn out there that is equal opportunity and that treats women like human beings."

What do you mean by this exactly? Equal opportunity as it sexualizes both men and women? I doubt straight dudes would be into that. And what's the difference between objectifying porn and non-objectifying porn to you?

Re: Is being against the male gaze sex negative?

philstar22 - 2019-03-18 01:45 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Is being against the male gaze sex negative?

(Anonymous) - 2019-03-18 02:00 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Is being against the male gaze sex negative?

philstar22 - 2019-03-18 02:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Is being against the male gaze sex negative?

(Anonymous) - 2019-03-18 02:38 (UTC) - Expand

if it's cultural it can change

Yup.

“Male gaze” is not “men looking at women” - it’s a specific term in media/art criticism about the inherent assumption of a straight male perspective from the audience and/or creator, and the of prioritizing that perspective, and how this widespread issue with media colors how women and other groups outside of the assumed straight male audience are portrayed and viewed both in and outside media.

I'm so glad you made this comment. Because I so didn't want to have to, and I wouldn't have articulated things as well as you did.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only