
What about “Piercings or no piercings?” These are just aesthetic questions. Human beings have visual aesthetic content, that’s why they make up the vast majority statues. To discuss this aesthetic content is not to deny the content of everything that is not visual about a person.
Well then humor me and give me the benefit of the doubt instead of js downvoting without saying anything. Cuz I’ll just go on believing my stupid idea without being corrected which isn’t a good thing. So I’d like for someone to share a different opinion but nobody wants to do that?
I’m ngl you’re either ragebaiting or you’re just incredibly unintelligent. There’s no way you just asked me to prove an opinion 😭 It’s literally not possible to PROVE an opinion because it is subjective. I can present the exact same facts to two people and one will agree and one will disagree. You cannot prove something that is not an objective fact
Your first reply to me was “stfu dweeb”. Literally textbook ad hominem but now you wanna pull that card 😂😂 Just say you don’t have any points to show why you disagree with me besides that fact that you just don’t like what I said because it makes you uncomfortable to concede to the fact that it is objectifying to say that about tall men
ill cave to your purposefully dense ragebait. Preferences are not inherently objectifying. Preferences is just being attracted to someone physically where objectification is reducing someone to those characteristics. Liking tall men isn’t inherently objectifying as it isn’t reducing men to a universal sexual preference. “Tall” isnt a universal definition, a 5’0 woman would find a 5’6 man tall while a 5’10 woman would find a 6’2 man tall-
My apologies I thought it went without saying that I was referring to men 6’0 and above since that’s the general metric used for tall. Never heard anyone call 5’6 tall even if they themselves are 5’0. Might be taller than you but not tall by society standards. Apologies for not making it clear before. I was referring to men specifically 6’0 and above because that’s what most women say they want
Also I could use the same argument that it’s just a preference between tits or ass. I could also say that a lot of tall men are reduced to just their height, at least I see that a lot on social media. So it really is just the same thing and you know it. It seems ur trying to do mental gymnastics to differentiate them but it’s really not that different
- Height also isnt an inherently sexual preference, it can be, but for the vast majority of people height is just a general attraction. Tits vs Ass is not only inherently sexual it universally applies set standards asking what part of a womans body you find sexier when bigger. Its also different than general body type preferences as no one body type has a set standard where, again, tits vs ass reduces a woman to a specific sexual preference how you want a certain part of her body to look
Because there are most definitely more women that would date a guy and say smth like “he’s 6’4” as the first thing when telling her friends about him than there are guys who will date a girl and say “shes a d cup” as the first or most important reason as to why they’re together or why they’re attracted. Women are praised for dating men who are tall. Men aren’t praised for dating women with big boobs. Men are most definitely reduced to just their height as well and it’s ignorant to deny that
Height IS inherently sexual though. You mention it for “general” attraction but general attraction isn’t a thing. When we talk about attraction we are referring to sexual attraction. And if a man being tall makes you more sexually attracted to him then it IS an inherent sexual characteristic. And this is also the same logic of finding something sexier when bigger, only difference being this is the entire person rather than just a small part of them
For example muscles. Muscles are not sexually functional. You can’t have sex with biceps. However when a guy has big muscles it’s generally considered sexually attractive. It is a very similar thing with height. Now if women were saying that men must have 16 inch biceps or else then that is objectifying and reducing them to just height. But they aren’t doing that. However SOME women are saying he must be 183 cm or taller. That is textbook objectifying and reducing to just their height
i think the fact that you think general attraction isnt a thing shows where the split is here. anything CAN be a sexual attractive trait but that doesent mean it is inherently sexual. Some people dont find muscles or tall men sexually attractive, some people do, however ALL people attracted to men find dicks sexually attractive because thats an inherently sexual trait. Men can have preferences for brown hair or blonde hair, that isnt objectifying or inherently sexual, Ass or tits IS
And likewise my initial argument was that it’s objectifying to obsess over tall men not just prefer. Like I always see stuff online like “oh the feeling when he towers over me” and things of that nature. It seems objectifying to me because it just reduces him to just his height. Take away the height and take away the love for the man. Obviously not all women are like this but it’s enough for me to feel the need to just mention it on a post like thisb
I would argue that preference being specific numbers for something isn’t objectifying rather js shallow, which unfortunately universally preference and attraction is shallow. I think the difference between what is shallow and what is objectifying is whether the trait is INHERENTLY sexual. Height isnt, muscles isnt, weight isnt, hair color isnt. However ass vs tits is inherently sexual and is objectifying. I think a better comparison would be asking about dick size comparisons
I understand your point and agree somewhat but it all boils down to whether you believe only sexual characteristics can be objectified. By definition objectifying someone isn't exclusive to sexual features so it could be anything about them that you reduce them to or hold so dearly and more valuable than them as a person. I think it’d be objectifying to date someone and just obsess over how their hair is blonde. But if ur referring specifically to sexual objectification then ur right
I also want to add that having sexual preference isnt inherently bad or objectifying and thats where i disagree with you about your “that feeling when he towers over me” example. Its not reducing a man to his height, its expressing how a trait or action manifests as attraction. Its like when men say they are attracted to women tucking hair behind their ears. Obsession of any kind i say is just weird but not objectifying by nature.
I believe objectification is only sexual characteristics by nature. Things like height, hair color, or non sexual characteristics is fetishization. Both are wrong and weird asf dont get me wrong but I dont think they can hold the same space in this argument. I can see where your coming from though as reducing anyone to any trait is wrong
I also dont think its fair to argue that universally when talking about height preferences most women want a man 6ft+. Most women js want a man generally their height or taller. For example my friend is 5’2 and has dated men around 5’7 and considered them tall, Im 5’11 and wouldnt date a man shorter than me, i also wouldnt and havent dated a woman shorter than me. the narrative that all women need a 6ft+ man is one only seen online and doesent reflect the majority of the population