Sexism: Still A Problem?

[Morgaln]

Most men don't have breasts, unless they have gynecomastia. Female breasts are sexualized because it so happens that straight males and lesbian girls get sexually aroused by them. They are tabooed in general speech because the subject of female breasts has a direct connotation with sexual activity in and of itself. They have many "uses" in the sexual world, in ways that the male torso doesn't in any way. And to be honest, if a particularly fine-bodied young man walked by with no shirt, I'm sure some eyes would be batted. Female breasts are just more sexually related (and not to mention, more sensitive physically, but that's another argument) than a man's chest.
And in many cases, it would be indecent for a man to walk around shirtless.
But it's just a social norm that women shouldn't walk around shirtless, and I honestly don't think that's sexist at all. Maybe in the smallest ways. But not really.

I haven't heard someone say "you hit like a girl" in years (id est, when I was in elementary school), and personally, I've heard it used as a stereotype argument more than I've ever heard it used as a real insult. So, no. I've been hit hard by girls. Ouch.

Have you ever seen underwear ads? Hollister bags?
And "putting men in women's positions..." No one wants to see a bikini commercial with a man wearing the bikini. In the same light, women don't belong in commercials advertising underwear for men.

I hope this wasn't too harsh. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

Actually, males who have had breasts at some point in their lives is not an uncommon thing, even if they never knew it. It can happen from infancy through adulthood to almost any man for a variety of reasons, such as hormornal imbalances and weight gain, as pointed out by the Mayo Clinic. Your article actually only contained straight males, no lesbians involved ):

I'd also like to point out that your argument about the sexualization of female breasts sounds backwards. They provide a function (to feed offspring), first and formost, and have been sexualized by society through time. THAT'S why they're seen sexually. That's why it's taboo to even breast feed in public - because people link female toplessness with indecency first rather than with the simple act of feeding a child during that period of time. We've warped it in our heads so much that we can't separate the idea of sex from female breasts when the time comes and it's sad. It's not like women are proposing to be able to take off their shirts in stores and restaurants, only in places where men are able, like their own private property (front lawn and back yard), beaches, etc. If it's not appropriate to ask a man with breasts to cover himself, then why ask a woman to cover herself? If the whole idea against topless women is that female breasts can be used in sex then where does that leave flat chested women, and overweight men? Breasts mostly consist of fat, after all, what's so obscene about that? And most everyone has nipples anyway, so don't tell me female nipples are any more sexual than a man's.

There might be biological reasons for linking breasts to sex, not just cultural ones. Breasts are a highly erogenous zone, due to the high number of nerve endings in that area, especially the areolas and nipples. While that is true for men as well, it's to a lesser extent.

Also, compared to other mammals and especially species closely related to humans, human women have far bigger breasts than other females, not only when feeding children but at any time. The English sociobiologist Desmond Morris postulated that due to the upright walk, the buttocks lost their prominence and thus their function as the main attraction to males in primates (just look at baboons or mandrills as the extreme examples for that). Therefore breasts grew to fill that function. There are also other related effects he's talking about, like encouraging frontal coupling that strengthens social bonds by having the partners see each other.
The theory is supported by the fact that the larger breasts don't seem to provide any biological advantage, as the size is (as you pointed out) mostly caused by fat. In many animals, seemingly "useless" features like that are to show how healthy and successful a potential mate is, so-called sexually selected traits (the classic example for that would be the stalk-eyed fly, but it also includes so simple things as horns and antlers in many ungulates or the peacock's tail). They don't provide a direct advantage and are even cumbersome in some cases, but increase the chance to attract a potential partner and therefore reproduce successfully.
Experiments with the previously mentioned stalk-eyed fly have proven that the effect of sexually selected traits can be coded genetically and be independent of experience/upbringing.

Whether all that (or part of it) is true for human breasts is another matter entirely and is unlikely to ever be proven conclusively one way or another. Even if it is true, the effect is likely to be reinforced by culture, although far less so today then, say, during the Victorian era. However, it means that there might be not only a biological but even a genetic reason to link breasts with sex, and that is hard to get over.

[HobbitFeet]

There might be biological reasons for linking breasts to sex, not just cultural ones. Breasts are a highly erogenous zone, due to the high number of nerve endings in that area, especially the areolas and nipples. While that is true for men as well, it's to a lesser extent.

Also, compared to other mammals and especially species closely related to humans, human women have far bigger breasts than other females, not only when feeding children but at any time. The English sociobiologist Desmond Morris postulated that due to the upright walk, the buttocks lost their prominence and thus their function as the main attraction to males in primates (just look at baboons or mandrills as the extreme examples for that). Therefore breasts grew to fill that function. There are also other related effects he's talking about, like encouraging frontal coupling that strengthens social bonds by having the partners see each other.
The theory is supported by the fact that the larger breasts don't seem to provide any biological advantage, as the size is (as you pointed out) mostly caused by fat. In many animals, seemingly "useless" features like that are to show how healthy and successful a potential mate is, so-called sexually selected traits (the classic example for that would be the stalk-eyed fly, but it also includes so simple things as horns and antlers in many ungulates or the peacock's tail). They don't provide a direct advantage and are even cumbersome in some cases, but increase the chance to attract a potential partner and therefore reproduce successfully.
Experiments with the previously mentioned stalk-eyed fly have proven that the effect of sexually selected traits can be coded genetically and be independent of experience/upbringing.

Whether all that (or part of it) is true for human breasts is another matter entirely and is unlikely to ever be proven conclusively one way or another. Even if it is true, the effect is likely to be reinforced by culture, although far less so today then, say, during the Victorian era. However, it means that there might be not only a biological but even a genetic reason to link breasts with sex, and that is hard to get over.

Okay, I'll consider a biological link. It's logical, though there are many different motivations for sex. The aesthetics of a person's breasts are certainly a part of it, but there's usually a little more than that when making the decision to sleep with someone. Usually There's also a difference between sexual arousal by the aesthetic view of a breast (being turned on because, I don't know, they're looking at nudie mags or something), and the appraisal and subsequent decision to have sex with a woman because of a the woman's purported fertility based on the shape and size of her breast. The second example is more clinical and less likely to happen. That's why I don't believe the biological angle is foolproof. Humans are too complex to be motivated by biology alone. It's why we sometimes fall in love with terminally ill people, infertile people. Why we choose not to have children. Why some of us choose the same "types" over and over again even though they're tried and proven doomed relationships. If we're hoping to pass on our genes this way, it's a baaaad way. It's not a bad theory, but humans are... a strange animal.

I still stand by my argument that female breasts are not obscene, however. There are already places where it's legal for women to be topless in public in the USA. There are third world countries where women never needed to wear anything to cover their breasts. I firmly believe that whatever is holding us back from this little piece of equality is more in our own social creation than in our biology.

[ExplicitiveUhoh]

Yes, sexism is still definitely a problem, despite the fact that certain outright parts of misogyny (not being allowed to vote, hold a job that didn't fall into a 'feminine field', own property, not be allowed to wear pants or to have to wear clothes that go down to ankles, wrists and necks, etc.) have been abolished in the USA. Now though, we have more of a subconscious/mainstream sexism that is easier for most people to ignore.

Most people can see that women in America can work, can own property, can vote and can wear clothes that weren't acceptable in the 1800s and think we've gotten past the whole misogyny issue. And then conveniently ignore all the little snips and barbs against those rights that women have and believe that 'better than things were' is the same as 'it's all better now'. It isn't. The situation is more like 'better than it was, but still needs improving.'

Attitudes about women and their sexual image.
A woman's body is not inherently more sexual than a man's in regards to biology, but we try to treat it as such in society. The actual sexual parts of a body are the vagina and the penis (i.e. the sex organs-female breasts are not classified as sex organs), and which ones a person is equipped with is determined by a set of sex chromosomes. Those are the sex organs of humans everywhere. In almost every case regarding the use of public decency laws here in America, though, where a female would get ticketed for a lack of a shirt; a male would not. Even if the man has fatty tissue or even too much built up muscle where they can gain a 'breast-like' look, they would not be ticketed because a male would not have 'female boobs'. Because manly boobs are alright and not sexual, I'd also like to point out that someone's glazed or scandalized look is not the same as actually being ticketed for a lack of a shirt. The fact that one type of breast is not sexual but another one is, and this is all determined by a person's gender, is sexist.

Breasts do not contribute to a female's actual sex organ either, in any more way than heavy kissing, 'dirty talk' or otherwise making out does. It is not tied directly to a vagina and does not have to be present for a vagina (or even a penis) to work. Those sex organs work quite well on their own. Otherwise men and women would never be able to successfully masturbate. A man might become aroused from looking at breasts, but that is more of a cultural part of American society where we have turned breasts into something sexual, not because they are inherently sexual. Men are also turned on by butts, by pretty eyes, and make-up/no make-up, etc. There are men who are turned on by a woman's hands, so it's obviously not just a 'breast!' issue. The only biological use of breasts that has been proven is that they are to provide milk for young offspring. That's it, like the nipples of every other female mammal does. Returning to the fact that breasts being sexual is a learned process and not a biological one, certain cultures do not regard the female breasts as something to be covered up-because they do not see that as sexual. They have topless men and women and neither are scorned for something that is normal to them. But, other cultures feel that a woman's skin, from anywhere on their body, (much like in the 1800s here in America) is sexual and thus must be covered. It's taught, not biological. Most women in fact do not find their breasts magical sex buttons that need protecting and cuddling (as seen by female comedians typically involving crude jokes of their man's weird obsession with mauling their boobs during sex and thinking that they liked it). Some people can find it pleasing, while others would prefer ear nibbling while another would want heavy kissing, but we still kiss lightly in public and allow ears to be shown off.

Along the lines of changing learned behavior is hard, it was also taught in America that women were inferior and second class to men, but we've been teaching (though some are still refusing to learn) equality of all people in America for a while now. The reaction to female breasts are one of those changeable attitudes.

Attitudes about women and the their responsibility for crimes committed against them/others.
Its normal for talking heads and pundits to come on-stage and say that a woman is at fault for a crime, despite the fact that she didn't actually commit the crime. This is present in almost every rape case brought to attention, where it must have been due to how she looked, dressed, or acted. She was too attractive, had a drink or decided to have more than one, trusted the wrong guy, went to a party unsupervised, opened the door to a strange male, flirted with a man, etc. People like to start out with, "I'm not blaming the victim," and end with this, "but she should have prevented this." We teach women 'rape prevention' so that they are not raped and expect it to magically protect women at all times despite the fact that most rapes have been by trusted friends/family, despite rape happening whether wearing bulky clothing or revealing clothing, or despite rape happening whether alcohol is involved or not. We have arguments about a guy's culpability for rape when he says he doesn't know that sticking his fingers into an unconscious woman's vagina counts as rape. But still society says we shouldn't have 'rape prevention' directed at men because not all men are rapists. But not all men apparently know what rape is. Hell, it seems like a lot of men when interviewed or commenting on a rape case don't seem to know what consent means. They seem to think all sex is consensual so long as there's no woman screaming "no, stop raping me!" while clawing and crying is going on. Unless an explicit yes is given while not impaired, it is rape. Consent is being able to say yes in sound mind, without threat or force, to an action. It is never implied. It is not a woman's fault they were raped, nor is the responsibility of rape prevention only on women.

It seems as if it is a very common thread to tie the victim when they're women to the actions of those who committed the crime, whether its the internet, the gossip around the water cooler, or the news/radio shows. That is also sexism at play.

Attitudes about 'feminine' versus 'masculine'.
Treating girly things, or feminine things, as less desirable or less worthy than boyish or masculine things is sexist. Using terms such as 'you act/hit/play like a girl' to undermine someone less physically endowed or gifted than you, or 'it must be that time of the month' when males are apparently causing a scene or showing the emotions that all humans have but have been deemed 'womanly emotions', or to give the excuse of 'feminized cry-babies' to determine why men are failing in America compared to other countries (despite other top countries having included women into society like America has???), etc. is also sexist! I hear that at work, nowadays, and I heard it growing up all throughout school (I'm in my early twenties, so its not that far behind me), I still hear it on talk shows and read it on comment sections. It is still a thing. Stop saying it isn't really used today, because I have heard it practically every day of my life since I've begun to process words and their meanings. And those words are quite clear on their meaning, thank you very much.

I still hear about women needing to do housework, even if they are the bread-winners of a family, and that men have manly chores like mowing grass (which I've done, in a family with three older males all physically capable of it-and despite it being a chore that happens a lot less than typical housework) but still get told I should be doing laundry (that isn't mine, but theirs!) and dishes and cooking, etc. because its housework. It should be called cleaning up after yourselves and personal responsibilities to maintain a house that is split between all able-bodied persons, but apparently I'm a radical. I'm thinking some people are just lazy...

Attitudes about feminism.
Feminism isn't about enslaving male-kind, despite what some male conservative pundits 'interesting' takes on it say. It's about bringing women to the same level as men in society. As in, equal, at all points in life. Where having breasts doesn't change how valuable you are to society, whether within the workplace, the community or even just the household.

Treating it as a joke, or saying that things are worse in other parts of the world so we shouldn't bother here is deflecting and trivializing. Just because its worse somewhere else doesn't mean you don't take steps to make life better here and now.

The 1% extremists that are misandrists do not invalidate the entire movement of women who want to be equal, and that do not want be given special privileges (which are what exactly? I've yet to be given a clear example of this better rights and lot in life that women are apparently rolling in/trying to set up for themselves as they become overlords to all of humanity). Bring up the word feminist in my household and most will get riled up, as in, 'those femnazis!' riled up. That shouldn't be the go-to reaction. It should be, "and what issue are they speaking about now?", and then polite discussion whether you think that's an issue today or your take on it. The fact that femnazi has become considered an exchangeable word for feminism is a sign of misplaced priorities and sexism. Its especially telling that they are using the term 'Nazi' (a group that actually committed genocide/atrocities and dehumanized various groups of people) to replace feminist, as if having a woman speak angrily about men (and with some never having spoken poorly of men at all) is committing nearly the same level of horrors as what happened under a Nazi regime. It isn't, and I think its a very disrespectful co-opting of the term.

Conclusion:
Sure, it is better than it was before. It will continue to get better here in America, even though I don't think all sexism will ever be gotten ridden of, but I feel that we could tackle a lot more of the attitude-based/subconscious sexism that some have trouble recognizing more quickly just by having these types of discussions and pointing out the who/what/why of it. It's this method that I've learned about problematic things I've done or contributed to, honestly, that has made me work on those behaviors.

[Kestrad]

There might be biological reasons for linking breasts to sex, not just cultural ones. Breasts are a highly erogenous zone, due to the high number of nerve endings in that area, especially the areolas and nipples. While that is true for men as well, it's to a lesser extent.

Also, compared to other mammals and especially species closely related to humans, human women have far bigger breasts than other females, not only when feeding children but at any time. The English sociobiologist Desmond Morris postulated that due to the upright walk, the buttocks lost their prominence and thus their function as the main attraction to males in primates (just look at baboons or mandrills as the extreme examples for that). Therefore breasts grew to fill that function. There are also other related effects he's talking about, like encouraging frontal coupling that strengthens social bonds by having the partners see each other.
The theory is supported by the fact that the larger breasts don't seem to provide any biological advantage, as the size is (as you pointed out) mostly caused by fat. In many animals, seemingly "useless" features like that are to show how healthy and successful a potential mate is, so-called sexually selected traits (the classic example for that would be the stalk-eyed fly, but it also includes so simple things as horns and antlers in many ungulates or the peacock's tail). They don't provide a direct advantage and are even cumbersome in some cases, but increase the chance to attract a potential partner and therefore reproduce successfully.
Experiments with the previously mentioned stalk-eyed fly have proven that the effect of sexually selected traits can be coded genetically and be independent of experience/upbringing.

Whether all that (or part of it) is true for human breasts is another matter entirely and is unlikely to ever be proven conclusively one way or another. Even if it is true, the effect is likely to be reinforced by culture, although far less so today then, say, during the Victorian era. However, it means that there might be not only a biological but even a genetic reason to link breasts with sex, and that is hard to get over.

Breasts have also been theorized to have developed as a way for women to feed their babies without suffocating them. They may also be an indication that the woman has a steady enough food source to raise her babies (since she can afford to lug around two sacks of fat) or simply be there to make holding babies against the woman's chest more comfortable. In addition, the fact that humans have no mating season means our hormones levels are different from other primates and that may have something to do with why we have breasts as well.

The point is, evolutionary pseudoscience is all too often used to justify sexism--why women can and can't do things, or in this case, why breasts should in fact be sexualized. I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, but evolution is one tricky field and *really* should not be used to justify sexism, ever. As my evo devo professor pointed out, it's all too common of a trap for people to fall into where they try to justify every single feature as evolutionarily significant. If you're interested, this scientific paper is a very good critique regarding exactly why not every trait should have evolutionary significance ascribed to it. I think this should be something that everyone thinks about before trying to ascribe sexism to "evolutionary reasons."

[crazyflight]

2. Female breasts are sexualized and tabooed, while men can walk around without their shirts on and no one will bat an eye.

3. The term "you fight/play/throw like a girl" is used offensively

4. You only ever see women sexualized in ads for things. Lemme tell you, if we put men in the same clothing/positions as half of the women in ads, the problem would be obvious.

There are so many more...

Most men don't have breasts, unless they have gynecomastia. Female breasts are sexualized because it so happens that straight males and lesbian girls get sexually aroused by them. They are tabooed in general speech because the subject of female breasts has a direct connotation with sexual activity in and of itself. They have many "uses" in the sexual world, in ways that the male torso doesn't in any way. And to be honest, if a particularly fine-bodied young man walked by with no shirt, I'm sure some eyes would be batted. Female breasts are just more sexually related (and not to mention, more sensitive physically, but that's another argument) than a man's chest.
And in many cases, it would be indecent for a man to walk around shirtless.
But it's just a social norm that women shouldn't walk around shirtless, and I honestly don't think that's sexist at all. Maybe in the smallest ways. But not really.

I haven't heard someone say "you hit like a girl" in years (id est, when I was in elementary school), and personally, I've heard it used as a stereotype argument more than I've ever heard it used as a real insult. So, no. I've been hit hard by girls. Ouch.

Have you ever seen underwear ads? Hollister bags?
And "putting men in women's positions..." No one wants to see a bikini commercial with a man wearing the bikini. In the same light, women don't belong in commercials advertising underwear for men.

I hope this wasn't too harsh. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

I don't think it's harsh, more as it is a little biased. You're speaking from the point of view of a man, who hasn't had to deal with the same oversexualization women do.

I think that the point is what is the difference between a males chest in public, and a females chest. I for one do find arousal when I see the chest of a man. If it's just the breast part of it, (I do not mean this, it is only an example) Why can't flat-chested women, or overwight men get to walk around without/with a shirt? It's easy for a man to say something like that when they've never dealt with having breasts. It becomes almost painful when you know that some men would be far more interested in how your breasts bounce without a bra, then what kind of person you are.

I've heard men say you throw/kick like a girl even still. Whether or not you use it as an insult is irrelevant, because you're still saying that it's somehow wrong to have a womans strength, or that women are just weaker. It's like saying "Why are all men so dense?" it's offensive, because if you don't view yourself as dense, or you don't think the same way, how does some random girl have the right to insult you like that?

I think it's a little unfair to say nobody wants to asee men like that. You're a guy, and unless you're homosexual, I don't think you would. It's not about men wearing bikinis, it's about men being sexualized int he same way.

Let me bring up an example. We didn't bat an eyelash that Robin Thicke was getting twerked against, we cheered him on. Now Miley? oh she's such a disgraceful slut, who could do something like that? She's a whore. These are all things iv'e heard. Yes, she is being a little overly sexual, but it's HER CHOICE. Nobody even really paid attention to the fact that the dude had a girlfriend, or a wife-- Something of that sort.

As a woman, I feel like it's harder for you to understand--I can't say you haven't, but you must not have to go through the same insecurities, fears of rape, prejudices as a woman does. I doubt you've ever been worried that you're going to be raped by the man who seemed to be following you home, or have to dress a very specific way because if you reveal too little you're boring, you're childish, but if you reveal to much you're a slut.

That's another thing. That the word slut even exsists. Yes, men get called players, or manwhores, but it's not that same. When you call a man a player, you're critizizing the behavior towards women that that particular man has. When you call a woman a slut, you're talking about the sex itself. You're attacking women JUST because she had sex.

It's unfair for you to say things like that if you've never been in a womens shoes. Now I'm not saying that women are better than men, or we hold all the worlds problems--We don't. We're lucky we don't have to deal with some od the crap men do, but in our society, if a man doesn't get laid before he reaches manhood he's pathetic. If a women does it's fine because she's a virgin. If she does have sex, shame on her for not saving herself. Do you see what I mean?

I don't get aroused by female breasts; nonetheless, I'd feel a bit uncomfortable around a woman walking around shirtless, probably because of the taboo that I've been exposed to my whole life, and mostly because I'm not used to that kind of thing. I don't even think it's indecent in any way. In most situations, I'd prefer that everyone's skin is covered. Maybe my views are biased, but it's not so easy to step into your shoes. I think that it's fair to believe that a woman should have as many rights to walk around shirtless as a very finely-toned man does. Everyone has a right to their body, and if they want to walk around shirtless, so be it. It's none of my business.

Ha, really? Where I lived was pretty sexist (as far as middle school close-mindedness goes), but even that was pathetic and childish. Maybe sexism grows as people get older. I have no idea on that. But I don't think that's sexism as much as stereotype if it's not used as an insult. And stereotypes are just ridiculous, and that's another thread of HoS discussion.

Men, like those in the images that I linked to, can be just as sexualized as women. I am homosexual, and I still wouldn't want to see a guy in a bikini. What's the point? Bikinis are not meant to embrace male physiology. Same with male underwear. At least, I don't think that's what the makers had in mind with their products. I don't care if a woman wants to wear male underwear, or if a male feels comfortable wearing a bikini to the beach.

Cheered him on? You're saying we as if you did that. I was more disgusted with Miley Cyrus just because she was putting herself in the positions. She was feeling him up, she was "twerking" on him, etc. Robin Thicke didn't take much action to put himself in those positions. And if he resisted, it would be a hot mess on stage. Still, no one that I've talked to "cheered him on." He's a revolting disgrace, and about 80% of the people I've talked to brought up that he had a partner already.
So we're exposed to different perspectives embodied in the people we've talked to about it.
Miley Cyrus chose to act "slutty" on that day. She's not a whore, per se. But she basically fed the sexism machine by making herself look submissive and sexual, putting Thicke in a position of command. At least, that's what the "choreography" looked like to me.

Men can get raped. And I don't dress revealingly, but guys who wear excessively low v-neck shirts and the like disgust me. Even if it can be attractive. That's just as "slutty" as a girl wearing a tiny piece of fabric that barely works to contain her breasts. There is a point where it gets to be too much for both genders.

Unlike many people, I don't see a problem with being heavily promiscuous, within certain limits. If one man wants to have sex with, like, ten women in one week, I don't see a problem with him doing that if all of the women are fine with it. Sure, it's unhealthy, and I'd never do that. But if someone is willing to take those risks, so be it. It's the exact same with a woman; if she wants to have ten guys in her bed over the course of a week, and they want to as well, it's none of anyone's business and no one has the right to call her a slut. I have a right to disapproval, but expressing that disapproval by calling a man/woman a slut is not acceptable. It's none of anyone's business what someone else wants to do with their body. With a viewpoint like mine, not many people warrant the use of the word "slut". I don't use it often, or at all, really.

Say things like what? I actually retract my statement:

But it's just a social norm that women shouldn't walk around shirtless, and I honestly don't think that's sexist at all. Maybe in the smallest ways. But not really.

I've read a little bit more, and this is incorrect. It is sexist, and women should have as much right as a man has to walk around shirtless.

I do see what you mean, and those sayings are the most sexist of all because it sets different expectations for people. It's a step above stereotypes. Like, for example, if a gay boy isn't flamboyant, he's defying the stereotype. But if a boy decides that he doesn't want to risk STDs and he practices abstinence, he's not stereotype-defying. He's a "pussy," or, as you said, pathetic. And it's sad that people feel as though they have to live in the societal boundaries of today's world.

Gosh, I changed some of my own views just by typing up this response. Thank you.

[Kestrad]

Crazy, may I recommend that you read the male privilege checklist? I'm not saying that you necessarily enjoy all these privileges, or that you are a bad person if you do, but it helps to give some perspective on just how women still don't get equal treatment as men.

Also, I'd like to point out that when you talk about men being sexualized, it happens far less often--and generally, sexualized men still play far more into male power fantasies than what's arousing for females. If you look at movies, for example, all too often women are framed by their boobs, their butts, whatever men find sexy. It's a concept known as "the male gaze." It's not really the same for men, even when they are portrayed sexily--often they are doing important things and in a dominant position.

[crazyflight]

Crazy, may I recommend that you read the male privilege checklist? I'm not saying that you necessarily enjoy all these privileges, or that you are a bad person if you do, but it helps to give some perspective on just how women still don't get equal treatment as men.

Also, I'd like to point out that when you talk about men being sexualized, it happens far less often--and generally, sexualized men still play far more into male power fantasies than what's arousing for females. If you look at movies, for example, all too often women are framed by their boobs, their butts, whatever men find sexy. It's a concept known as "the male gaze." It's not really the same for men, even when they are portrayed sexily--often they are doing important things and in a dominant position.

Yes, you may recommend it, but why? I'm too young to enjoy most of those privileges, and even so, I don't really have much of an opinion on sexism. I realize that women don't get equal treatment to men. I just try not to get involved in sexism.

I don't really know what to say in response to that. I mean... I guess that's what happens. I try not to notice that kind of thing, because what's the point? People try to advocate feminism to me, or they try to show me the evils of sexism, but what can I do? I don't like sexism, but that's as far as I'll go. I wouldn't really involve other people in what I think about it. It's not like my views on women's rights to abortion, which I'm willing to argue about.
And I'm assuming that you mean the "straight male gaze," because I don't find women's boobs or butts attractive. I don't like the grouping us (meaning homosexual males) with straight males in what we find "sexy," because we are completely different from them (straight males).

[Kestrad]

Yes, you may recommend it, but why? I'm too young to enjoy most of those privileges, and even so, I don't really have much of an opinion on sexism. I realize that women don't get equal treatment to men. I just try not to get involved in sexism.

I don't really know what to say in response to that. I mean... I guess that's what happens. I try not to notice that kind of thing, because what's the point? People try to advocate feminism to me, or they try to show me the evils of sexism, but what can I do? I don't like sexism, but that's as far as I'll go. I wouldn't really involve other people in what I think about it. It's not like my views on women's rights to abortion, which I'm willing to argue about.

....then why are you giving us your opinion in this thread, if it's not something you want to involve other people in what you think about it? Just because you're too young to enjoy some of those privileges now, doesn't mean they won't exist for you in a few years. And I find it a little...disconcerting that you fail to see how abortion and sexism are inherently linked.

And I'm assuming that you mean the "straight male gaze," because I don't find women's boobs or butts attractive. I don't like the grouping us (meaning homosexual males) with straight males in what we find "sexy," because we are completely different from them (straight males).

And just because *you* as a homosexual male don't find the male gaze arousing, doesn't mean that it's less of a problem for women or make it less sexist. "Male gaze" is a very general term. Yes, it refers to straight male gaze, but you're derailing by bringing in heterosexuality vs homosexuality here. It's called the male gaze because it panders to males. Maybe not all males, but it is for males and therefore it is the male gaze. Whether or not it pleases non-straight males isn't the point here.

[crazyflight]

Yes, you may recommend it, but why? I'm too young to enjoy most of those privileges, and even so, I don't really have much of an opinion on sexism. I realize that women don't get equal treatment to men. I just try not to get involved in sexism.

I don't really know what to say in response to that. I mean... I guess that's what happens. I try not to notice that kind of thing, because what's the point? People try to advocate feminism to me, or they try to show me the evils of sexism, but what can I do? I don't like sexism, but that's as far as I'll go. I wouldn't really involve other people in what I think about it. It's not like my views on women's rights to abortion, which I'm willing to argue about.

....then why are you giving us your opinion in this thread, if it's not something you want to involve other people in what you think about it? Just because you're too young to enjoy some of those privileges now, doesn't mean they won't exist for you in a few years. And I find it a little...disconcerting that you fail to see how abortion and sexism are inherently linked.

I sort of meant IRL when I said that. I like to have discussions online about anything to hear different perspectives. And of course they'll exist for me in a few years. And of course I see how abortion and sexism are linked. That's why I used that as an example. Even though they are linked, the difference to me is that my opinions on the former are more developed than my opinions on the latter.

And I'm assuming that you mean the "straight male gaze," because I don't find women's boobs or butts attractive. I don't like the grouping us (meaning homosexual males) with straight males in what we find "sexy," because we are completely different from them (straight males).

And just because *you* as a homosexual male don't find the male gaze arousing, doesn't mean that it's less of a problem for women or make it less sexist. "Male gaze" is a very general term. Yes, it refers to straight male gaze, but you're derailing by bringing in heterosexuality vs homosexuality here. It's called the male gaze because it panders to males. Maybe not all males, but it is for males and therefore it is the male gaze. Whether or not it pleases non-straight males isn't the point here.

I didn't say that anything made anything less sexist. I don't want to be grouped with straight men in a "male gaze." That's all I meant. I didn't really mean to divert from the intention of the phrase - I was just saying. Is it not for lesbian women, though? I've talked to some girls who are more comfortable with males checking them out than women.

[Raneth]

Just figured I'd add something here: The "male gaze" is absolutely present in the gay community. There is a large pressure to be attractive and fit, to the point that, according to many sources, eating disorders and body dysmorphia is 3x more prevalent in the gay male community than in heterosexual males. You can get away with being heavy and hairy if you're a "Bear," or even a "cub," but attractiveness and physical fitness generally matters hugely. It's a sense of "better jog and go to the gym if you want partners." Not everyone feels the need to obey it, but the sense is there.

"According to a recent study conducted by the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and the National Development and Research Institute, gay men are three times more likely than heterosexual men to have an eating disorder. This research found that 15% of gay men report having some form of eating disorder in their lifetime, ranging from binge eating to bulimia to anorexia."

Full article here: http://www.addictionpro.com/article/eat ... le-culture

Of course, most older guys I've known who've had long term partners get over that, but by the time you're in your 50's I imagine most people have learned not to be shallow anyway, whether they be gay or straight, male or female. But saying the male gaze doesn't exist in the gay community is not accurate, from what I've seen and read.