quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

Hee hee.  It was fun visiting the profiles of all the men who answered this thread and peeeeeerving their pictures.  Love those male objects!  [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockmeupplease

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

Hee hee.  It was fun visiting the profiles of all the men who answered this thread and peeeeeerving their pictures.  Love those male objects!  [:D]

I feel so violated!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: hands0n0knees

I've always been puzzled by that verb, objectify.  Presuming that you all consider yourselves more or less autonomous subjects, how could you not objectify something you perceive, be it a man's body or an elm tree?  The opposite act, of subjectifying, necessarily includes a moment of objectifying.  The OP here has been shrewd enough to modify it with 'sexually', so you, madame, get my congratulations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hands0n0knees

I've always been puzzled by that verb, objectify.  Presuming that you all consider yourselves more or less autonomous subjects, how could you not objectify something you perceive, be it a man's body or an elm tree?  The opposite act, of subjectifying, necessarily includes a moment of objectifying. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

quote:

ORIGINAL: hands0n0knees

I've always been puzzled by that verb, objectify.  Presuming that you all consider yourselves more or less autonomous subjects, how could you not objectify something you perceive, be it a man's body or an elm tree?  The opposite act, of subjectifying, necessarily includes a moment of objectifying. 

Eschew obfuscation! [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: hands0n0knees

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

quote:

ORIGINAL: hands0n0knees

I've always been puzzled by that verb, objectify.  Presuming that you all consider yourselves more or less autonomous subjects, how could you not objectify something you perceive, be it a man's body or an elm tree?  The opposite act, of subjectifying, necessarily includes a moment of objectifying. 

Eschew obfuscation! [:D]

To put it less litotically, in other words, to avoid that trope whereby an affirmation is expressed by the negative of the contrary, who is the signatory, the I, both instances of the 'and', in the structure understood with the spectre of semiotics that you are complicit in promoting? More to the point, is your I a teleologically stable sumploke...or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: aidan

This guy? I like this guy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

What I'm wondering is if there is a plate of glass his face is wedged up against in that picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AMaster

No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha


This is an offshoot of an earlier discussion, but one I thought would do better in its own thread.  In that thread we discussed the ethics of sexually objectfying others without them knowing about it. 

I'm interested to hear how men feel about being sexually objectified by a woman.  Some examples:

1. You know a woman is checking you out. She's look at your ass and whispering to her friends. It's probably not unlikely that she may be fantasizing about you.
2. Women in a convertible see you on a corner and lean out to whistle at you and tell you that they think you are hot.
3. A very attractive boss seems to enjoy making you get things from the lowest filing cabinet and you catch her staring at you.
4. Your dentist or doctor seems to linger a little and give commands that seem to be on the edge of normal, seemingly to see you in various positions.

Do these, or other similar scenarios, offend you or flatter you? 
Does it make a difference if the women are "HOT" vs. very average? 

Akasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

*peeks into the thread, pervs a few more menfolk, tiptoes out again*