Anonymous hellraiser 1d

fr tho i actually have heard men complain about wanting something real and only finding women that want hookups. it does happen. there are just a lot more men that are into casual sex due to differences in gender socialization, expectations and hormonal differences

8

Anonymous onlyneedonepopcorn 1d

Well most. And if they do complain they’re met with “you’re so lucky” “I wish that was me” etc

6

Anonymous #1 1d

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

-3

Anonymous #5 1d

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

13

Anonymous #6 1d

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

-2

Anonymous #5 1d

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

10

Anonymous #6 1d

And what would the difference look like?

-1

Anonymous #5 1d

……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 1d

A lot more people having sex

1

Anonymous #5 1d

Clearly you put a lot of thought into that response.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

I mean, Id liked to think so

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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

1

Anonymous #6 1d

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

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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

Anonymous #6 1d

i mean. pretty sure countries with more gender equality do have more sex.

1

Anonymous hellraiser 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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

0

Anonymous #5 1d

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

2

Anonymous #6 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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 1d

in this instance, is he respecting consent?

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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 1d

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 1d

So you’re enthusiastically saying yes

1

Anonymous #5 1d

None of these scenarios include violence

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Pushing after you said no is sexual violence

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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 1d

What would make you expect there to be more?

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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

1

Anonymous #6 1d

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

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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 1d

Does the objectifying women make more sense now or not

1

Anonymous #6 1d

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

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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 1d

The second one

1

Anonymous #5 1d

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 1d

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 1d

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

Anonymous #7 1d

That’s about cheating

0

Anonymous #5 20h

oh it’s most def not just about cheating. the sexual double standard is alive and well. women are slut shamed wayy more than men

4

Anonymous hellraiser 20h

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

-1

Anonymous hellraiser 20h

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

-1

Anonymous #5 20h

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

Anonymous #5 20h

it’s not just about cheating. most sexual shaming is towards women who have casual sex and high body counts. just look at any comment section of a woman’s post saying she’s done something promiscuous, or discussing body count. there are many terms and phrases used to degrade women who are promiscuous, hœ, wh*re, slut, skank, tramp, ran through

1

Comment Deleted

0

Are you black?

1

Comment Deleted

0

it is actually very much used to shame women i don’t know how that isn’t obvious to you

12

Anonymous hellraiser 20h

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

Anonymous hellraiser 20h

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

Anonymous hellraiser 20h

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

1

Anonymous #5 20h

it’s not used specifically for women that cheat tho, even if that is the original intended purpose. i’ve seen it said to women in attempts to shame them for promiscuous behavior that’s not cheating. see the urban dictionary definitions.

8

Anonymous #5 20h

i’m not black and don’t intend to show any disrespect for AAVE, i’m simply telling you how i have seen the phrase utilized online and in real life.

1

Anonymous hellraiser 20h

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 20h

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

Anonymous #5 20h

you can argue about the original history of the phrase all you want. the truth is that it’s deviated from that, and to ignore that is ignorant

6

Anonymous hellraiser 20h

You cannot tell Black people with their term means

1

Anonymous hellraiser 20h

You cannot tell Black people what their term means

1

Anonymous #5 20h

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 19h

i feel like you’re intentionally misunderstanding me. whether or not the term originally meant an unfaithful woman is irrelevant. the fact of the matter is that it is CURRENTLY not solely used to describe a cheating woman.

8

Anonymous #5 16h

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

-2

Anonymous #8 16h

Aave is definitely a real thing, it’s a dialect just like how new yorkers gave a different dialect.

1

Anonymous onlyneedonepopcorn 16h

have*

1