As I watched this video showing me samples of all these ads depicting women, and listened to another woman’s voice complain about how all these women were being depicted, I got a little confused about whose behavior it was that she was complaining about. Was she complaining about the behavior of those women who volunteered to be depicted that way, in exchange for financial resources? Was she complaining about the advertising companies who paid them those same resources? Or was she complaining about the men those ads were supposed to entice to sacrifice more resources in order to buy whatever it was those women were selling?
As a hetero’ male, anytime I see an ad with a sexualized woman in it, I assume that I (and my financial resources) are the target of that ad. As I saw it, every one of those ads was supposed to capture my attention and entice me to hand over resources. The $$ I spend on those things is what finances the salaries that those models are paid. She may have a point that these women are being depicted in such way as to send the message that they are sex objects. But that same depiction sends the message that I am a cash machine who makes his spending decisions with his dick, so that those decisions can be influenced by flashing a little cleavage at me.
Which of us has the most grounds to be insulted here?
As I see it, women are perfectly happy appearing that way anytime it benefits them. I have seen similar flashes of cleavage in bars by women who wanted free drinks. I’ve seen it from waitresses who wanted bigger tips. I’ve seen it in sales rep’s that expected it to get them an easier commission. And as long as I continue to earn resources, AND to give them up without much resistance, then nobody complains.
The complaining starts when 1) I run out of resources 2) I refuse to give up the resources 3) The woman doing the complaining is not the one receiving those resources.
To illustrate my point: take the 50 shades of gray movie that women are getting all lathered up over, and re-write that script. Leave the entire story exactly as it is, except for a single detail. The only detail you change is: instead of the guy who chains up, abuses and “objectifies” the girl in the story… being filthy rich, you just make him lower middle class in income and net worth. If everything else stays the same, but that detail changes, the whole script collapses.
Why? Because it’s no longer fantasy-worthy if he isn’t rich. My perception of that: the determination to extract resources from men is so strong, that just the POSSIBILITY of extracting resources is enough to make objectification and abuse not only acceptable, but fantasy-worthy.
You may not be a billionaire, so it may be difficult to believe that anyone would be so determined to extract those resources from you. But if you accept that this is exactly the goal, and that this is exactly the level of determination applied to reaching that goal, understanding all the rest of the behavior is very easy…
THE COMPLAINTS NEVER COME FROM THE RECIPIENT OF THE $$ RESOURCES…
Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you
Aristotle 3 years, 12 months ago.
