Jump to content

Objectifying men


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3057 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Well first off, does SL even have a sexualized culture that is relevant? I think so. SL does have a much larger degree of sexuality than most other virtual worlds (including game worlds). I'd agree to the first question because sexualized things always objectify people. It's practically the definition of sexualization which for me is to emphasize the sexual aspects of a person and minimize all other aspects of their humanity. So yes, I think SL's sexual culture objectifies men and women. I'd say the focus on one particular gender is irrelevant.

So if we believe the line of thinking introduced in the first question, that a sexualized culture causes people to objectify other people, then the second question is asking if the sexualized culture also makes people want to be objectified by others. I think so. We see it all the time in the real world. Making yourself a sex object is one of many ways to increase your attractiveness to the opposite or same sex. General cleanliness is another way and so is memorizing poetry. So I'd agree to the second question because a sexualized culture always encourages people to objectify themselves as opposed to a non-sexualized culture which encourages people to make themselves attractive to other people through making themselves a better person.

I think by including 'sexualized culture of SL' you are begging the question. I know this is based on the other thread and that poster is the one that made the mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Venus Petrov wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Venus Petrov wrote:

Of course avatars are objects.  I do not know how this thread or the other one has gone off the deep end with all the chatter about feelings.

Gee, that one's a mystery... It's not like the original thread was a straw-avatar argument meant for the amusement of a former forum "rockstar" and his fans in the manner of those summer concerts by bands that were cutting edge forty years ago, was it?

Touched a nerve?

Apparently I have... And I've never said a word against drama - it's my business in RL, after all. But I can do other things too.

Now now...touching your own nerve.  Tsk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Bree Giffen wrote:

Well first off, does SL even have a sexualized culture that is relevant? I think so. SL does have a much larger degree of sexuality than most other virtual worlds (including game worlds). I'd agree to the first question because sexualized things always objectify people. It's practically the definition of sexualization which for me is to emphasize the sexual aspects of a person and minimize all other aspects of their humanity. So yes, I think SL's sexual culture objectifies men and women. I'd say the focus on one particular gender is irrelevant.

So if we believe the line of thinking introduced in the first question, that a sexualized culture causes people to objectify other people, then the second question is asking if the sexualized culture also makes people want to be objectified by others. I think so. We see it all the time in the real world. Making yourself a sex object is one of many ways to increase your attractiveness to the opposite or same sex. General cleanliness is another way and so is memorizing poetry. So I'd agree to the second question because a sexualized culture always encourages people to objectify themselves as opposed to a non-sexualized culture which encourages people to make themselves attractive to other people through making themselves a better person.

I think by including 'sexualized culture of SL' you are begging the question. I know this is based on the other thread and that poster is the one that made the mistake.

This ^^^ All of it. Totally. Could not agree more.

Nobody's avatar gets sexually objectified in SL unless their operator, male or female, makes the free choice to create a sex-object avatar - male or female - and voluntarily indulge in 'objectification activities'. Everybody could, if they so wished, make totally asexual avatars and plonk them down on art sims. However, in a realm of anonymity, where RL values and judgements are suspended, going the short-cut route of the sex-bomb-object to attract attention, to obtain peer approval, admiration and feel 'visible', is actually fairly logical. Let's not forget about the natural human desire to fit in - I could tell you a thing or two about opting not to fit into a world made of 'physically perfect' late teens and twenty-somethings. And in fact I had (have still, I suppose) alts which fit the usual standard when swimming against the current became tiresome. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Locke Nider wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Does the sexualized culture of SL objectify men?  Does it encourage men to objectify themselves?

I not completely sure, but judging by your forum posts, I can come to the conclusions that men of your "type" seem to objectify themselves a lot.

I've only been resident in Second Life for a bit under five years and a reader of (and occasional writer to) the SL Forums for four. I must say that is one of the most non-Second Life-ish (forgive my made up word; I couldn't think of another way to phrase that) comments I have ever seen.

And to the OP: Yes, and yes. As already pointed out more than once. And made perfectly clear by Carole in a recent post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe the SL community as a whole objectifies males OR females but, a vast majority who don't see either of the sexes as equals do. So to answer your question, I don't think so completely. Not everyone sees avatars of either sexes as only pixel bumping material but actually a living being with emotions and characteristics and some don't care on how the avatars in SL look. I do think however that if this was the case, I think perhaps female avatars are mostlylikely to be put in that position for obectification (not saying they are the only ones being in that position since men do too from time to time and thinking other wise would be false/delusional).

 

For the the question on if it encourages the person to be objectified, all depends on the person. It's true, most of the clothing items or skins/shapes are heavily sexualized to make your avatar look as beautiful as you wish and it's rare to see someone do the opposite but some people don't care and actually want to make their avatars look like their RL selves (or try to) or in some cases,worst. So again (and sorry about this again :matte-motes-mad:) yes and no. The objects may steer the user to purchase these over sexualized items but it's the user's choice wether or not to purchase and use them. Though there aren't as many "ugly" avatars or clothing compared to the more extravigant and sexy apparel, they still do infact exist without a doubt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Locke Nider wrote:

I not completely sure, but judging by your forum posts, I can come to the conclusions that men of your "type" seem to objectify themselves a lot.

Judging by YOUR Forum posts, I can come to the conclusion that people of your "type" really don't know what they're talking about when they talk about other people that they know nothing about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Locke Nider wrote:

I not completely sure, but judging by your forum posts, I can come to the conclusions that men of your "type" seem to objectify themselves a lot.

Judging by YOUR Forum
s, I can come to the conclusion that people of your "type" really don't know what they're talking about when they talk about other people that they know nothing about.

I am sorry Griffin, but I have to agree with Locke.

Awe . . . assuming the "type" he refers to is male avatars who have heavy seven o'clock shadows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes!!  I completely forgot I posted this.

Certainly, I'm sure I was much too intoxicated to remember such a blatant attempt to bask in Storm's gloriously illuminating presence here in the SL forum.  Regardless of whatever "type" of man I am, or am perceived to be, it's quite clear that I am not the type that would be asked to acquiesce to the request of a friend (who is no longer allowed to post here themself), to post something in their stead... I'm not the type that would be easily manipulated into posting an idea or train of thought that wasn't specifically my own.

And yet, in a drunken stupor, I'm perfectly able to post something almost word for word that someone else has posted before.  Am I an idiot?  Or was this my feeble attempt to poke fun at the original query?  Perhaps one day I will learn a lesson from this... something like, "Don't post crap to the SL forum while you're drunk out of your mind."

Considering the fact that I'm posting this at the moment, I haven't learned that lesson yet.

...Dres

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smashing to see you too.

Between you and me, I'm not convinced I understood the threads myself. 'Specially the gone-one - twas more off track than that film with Keanu Reeves and a runaway train. Or was it a bus? Personally I prefer him in Matrix. I'm not a fan of Sandra Bullock though. Sorta expressionless, in my opinion. I'm thinking she's had 'work' done. Still, not as bad as some. I'd never get work done.  Never looks right. Mind you, they'd not know where to start on me...

Anyway, like I was saying, can't stand folk who refuse to stay on-topic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3057 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...