![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Planetary Gender Theory
(Aka, men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and right now I feel like a visitor from another planet.)
This is going to take as much introduction as a Simpsons episode; bear with me.
Over in the comic book fandom I'm involved with Project Girl.Wonder, an effort to gain recognition/a memorial for a particular character (Stephanie Brown) and generally to combat sexism in comics.
This has, unsurprisingly, led to rather a few debates.
In one of the many ones, I saw this particular [to me, bogglesome] statement: "Objectification of women isn't wrong because without objectification the human race wouldn't exist, because objectification is necessary for men to be sexually attracted to women and therefore have sex."
This reminds me of the time on the PolyBoston Mailing List when Thud and cohorts argued that rape would be justified to preserve the human race and therefore couldn't be universally condemned. But, I digress.
I realized that one of the reasons I found this statement objectionable is that I found it confusing; this is completely not how my experience of sexual attraction works. The more attracted to someone I am the more singular they appear in my mind, the more unique attributes of theirs I notice. (Needless to say, I also found it horrifying, but be that as it may.)
But, it strikes me, I could be being a girl about this. And reality is what it is, whether we would it be so or not.
So, what do people think? Is attraction bound up in objectification for men? Is it necessary to see a woman as solely a collection of her sexual parts to be sexually attracted to her?
This is going to take as much introduction as a Simpsons episode; bear with me.
Over in the comic book fandom I'm involved with Project Girl.Wonder, an effort to gain recognition/a memorial for a particular character (Stephanie Brown) and generally to combat sexism in comics.
This has, unsurprisingly, led to rather a few debates.
In one of the many ones, I saw this particular [to me, bogglesome] statement: "Objectification of women isn't wrong because without objectification the human race wouldn't exist, because objectification is necessary for men to be sexually attracted to women and therefore have sex."
This reminds me of the time on the PolyBoston Mailing List when Thud and cohorts argued that rape would be justified to preserve the human race and therefore couldn't be universally condemned. But, I digress.
I realized that one of the reasons I found this statement objectionable is that I found it confusing; this is completely not how my experience of sexual attraction works. The more attracted to someone I am the more singular they appear in my mind, the more unique attributes of theirs I notice. (Needless to say, I also found it horrifying, but be that as it may.)
But, it strikes me, I could be being a girl about this. And reality is what it is, whether we would it be so or not.
So, what do people think? Is attraction bound up in objectification for men? Is it necessary to see a woman as solely a collection of her sexual parts to be sexually attracted to her?
no subject
no subject
I'm also over on Girl-Wonder. The discussions have been incredibly interesting, but sometimes disheartening on one end. (Especially the very early Girls Read Comics! (And They're Pissed) responses. Eegh.)
no subject
And, yay, Girl Wonder! If I weren't using my Seshat icon I'd use my Steph icon. Many of the replies have been disheartening, but snarking is always a good way to not lose heart. :)