I can't get into this in depth without casting premature judgments on B&D (I want to give him a chance to defend his statements before I assume anything) and going on a crazy anti-post-feminism fembot rage, so I'll limit my comments to these few: The paragraphs I quoted I feel indentify some big issues with perspectives on male and female sexuality. Objectification has become a two-way street. Certainly men play a large role due to the consumption of it, but there are many women now who associate objectification with sexual liberty, which I also believe involves issues of self-worth. Additionally, nasty and piggish behaviour in MATURE men is an idea that is applied a little to liberally, I find. It's as though male sexuality must suffer in order for women to be sexually confident. There are a lot of people who associate overt sexual interest as either degrading or objectifying, which I don't think is the case so long as it's met with a degree of social interest as well. Men and women are often the same, in that physical attraction will come first. It's usually more obvious, you can see physical qualities you like before you ever talk to someone. It's what how you choose to do deal with that interest that differentiates piggishness with genuine interest and respect. Additionally there are plenty of female chauvinist pigs who treat classic "male nastiness/piggishness" as the definition of sexual confidence.Originally Posted by thePirate
Lumping everyone in a group in either case is a mistake. Surely the issue is a delicate one with many differing opinions, but it seems that there are a lot of issues in finding the balance between the suppression of sexuality and sexual chauvinism. I can't really define the line, but I try my best to walk it by treating people with as much respect as I expect for myself.


Reply With Quote





"Yes, it will be done."