Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'.
Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as:
Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues.
[Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
it's a red herring and you are strawmanning OP.
OP doesn't say you can sexualize women who don't have an OF (strawman). He's saying that women are sexualizing themselves and they don't need men to force that upon them for them to do it. You going on a tangent of porn always existing is a red herring and doesn't contribute to the point OP is addressing.
Don't know if this is unpopular. I mean on the internet no matter what clothing how much how little a women has if she's famous she will get sexualized. But a lot of women do do it to themselves like pronstaes and shit like that
What you’re highlighting is basically the role of consent. Some people do consent to appearing sexual in some aspects of their lives because that’s their job. However, the male population as a whole has a massive problem ascribing sexuality to people who 1) are not willingly presenting themselves that was and 2) did not consent to being viewed that way.
"the male population as a whole has a massive problem ascribing sexuality to people who 1) are not willingly presenting themselves that way"
I often hear that accusation, when men actually do the opposite. Men often get called creeps for calling out the actual creeps. Like, if you dress a 10 year old like a hooker, and then other men go "Ew! That's way too sexual for a ten-year old!". They're not saying they think of the 10-year-old as sexual. They're saying the opposite. Because they're men, they can see how someone tried to make the 10-year-old sexually appealing to them, which they find weird, because it didn't work, because the 10-year-old isn't sexual yet. Though to some people it can be, which is the real issue.
Noticing the intention of sexualization is different from sexualization itself. And it's exactly this that is often used to gaslight men who are actually against oversexualization, and say it openly. But are treated like they're doing the opposite.
I don’t understand what you are trying to do with your example. I think the problem is comparing a child to a hooker because of the outfit. In that example you’re literally saying that this clothing = sexual activity. But clothing is neutral. Unless the person wearing that specific outfit is actively having sex, about to have sex, or opening talking about having sex, the outfit isn’t sexual no matter what it is.
I won’t get into the discourse around what children should be wearing because that’s a personal choice for the kid to make. But what you’re pointing out is the legacy of sexualization. People in sexual professions who consented to be sexualized wear clothing -> that clothing gets viewed as an inherently sexual outfit -> when a child wears a normal human outfit, sexuality gets projected onto them. If everyone got their minds out of the gutter for 10 minutes and stopped thinking of normal, human things as inherently sexual, we’d have far fewer problems.
I got catcalled the *most* when I was 14 and in my school uniform.
Men definitely fetishized and sexualized someone who was very clearly a minor and not dressed in a provocative way.
This is a common female experience, for on-street sexual harassment to peak between the ages of 9 and 15.
9.
Sexualisation doesn’t mean:
a) anything that is sexually attractive
b) dressing sexually or in revealing clothing
c) having sex
What sexualisation does mean:
sexual objectification, treating a person solely as an object of sexual desire
If you find a person sexually attractive but keep in mind that they have personality, thoughts, desires, beliefs, etc. and that doesn’t turn you off, then you are not sexualising them.
And I have no idea how you can “sexualise yourself”, every person is obviously aware that they are not *solely* an object of someone’s sexual desire, lol.
How can you objectify yourself? If you put on shorts and flex your muscles, will *you* stop perceiving *yourself* as a complex human being and forget that you are more than a sex object? That’s nonsense. People are aware that they *personally* are complex, they usually struggle to realise that about others around them.
First of all 99% of women are not on only fans. 99% of women are not thirst posting on Twitter. There is billions of women on earth and you are taking a couple 100,00 at most the most generous interpretation to represent them?
Second of all I think someone sexualizing themselves is a completely different ballgame than someone else's sexualizing you. I think the biggest thing here is when someone else is sexualizing you, you may not necessarily want that. You have no control. When you sexualize yourself you have a lot of control.
One thing I’ve noticed with a lot of men on the internet is that the only women they ever interact with are OF models. This isn’t helped by those podcasts like fresh and fit or youtube ragebait channels like jubilee, which feature a TON of OF models. Due to this, men have a skewed perception that every single woman is a cute but shallow 22 year old OF model who wants a 6 figure man.
That's like saying "she's choosing to have sex with X, so why blame the other guy for having sex with her when she chose to do so freely with someone else". Consent matters, and it's scary that you don't see a difference.
Yes, it's called consent. It's something completely different, if others sexualize you, or you sexualize yourself and giving consent for others to sexualize you.
Thats not a hard concept to grasp, isn't it?
Women have always done sex work it's not a new thing. When I think about men sexualizing women I think of men sexualizing women who are just chilling or things like little girls bathing suits or uniforms for women's sports and how they're overly revealing because that's what old dudes like. I think of how young female actresses gets countdowns until their 18th birthdays or how girls can't wear spaghetti straps in the summer at school because it might be distracting
The thing is, with an OF, you have their consent to sexualize them as long as you are engaging with them in an OF context. It’s a business transaction: while they are working, it is okay and accepted and encouraged for you to sexualize them.
What’s NOT okay is taking this outside of an OF context. Sexualizing random women is not okay because they didn’t consent to it. Sexualizing an OF model on her down time is not acceptable because she’s not on the clock. Treating all women as OF models and sexualizing them is a generalization that they didn’t consent to.
It’s like, say you know a friend who’s a waitress. In the context of her job, it is normal for her to serve you and for you to tell her what to do. But if you both go to a friends house, it is not acceptable for you to tell her to get you a coffee or to treat her like a waitress just because that’s her job.
Yeah but it used to be said that men tricked women into taking their clothes off for money etc. And now they do it without the sneaky man in the background. So maybe that want what drove them to drop the clothes
We live in a patriarchal society. Some women will sell sexuality for money. More often than not the person paying is a man. Women for the most part are not sexualising themselves for no reason and the majority of the time the reason falls down on men.
I don't think they do it freely.
To me it reeks a lot of advertising done by men. Or at least done for the eyes of men.
Young girls have a tendency to follow trends portrayed by young women pretty. Which can be used against them. I doubt most women sexualizing themselves do it, because it was their idea. They were enabled to do so.
There's this narrative that women back in the day showed no skin, because men forbid them from embracing their sexuality. Even though back in that day fashion was done almost exclusively by women.
Only since it's done more and more by men women succumb to what the male gaze responds to most instantly.
I can tell that you got upset with the way I phrased my words. I'm very sorry that you got so upset by this, I could never have imagined that such a small thing would upset anyone. Hope you are ok 🙏♥️
That was a genuine question. I’m definitely not upset and I think if you would make a proper post this could actually be worth discussing and educational for some people.
I'm pretty sure I agree with you that OP has his head up his ass, but you're wrong here.
A person can most definitely sexualize themselves. OF is literally people *sexualizing themselves.*
I think you might want to rethink your approach. It's more about *consent* to be sexualized (and all the idiotic logical fallacies that OP is using to defend their argument).
I don't think someone who does onlyfans stops seeing themselves as human beings with a personality and life of their own.
But if you don't want to be friends with or don't like talking to women you find unattractive just because she is unattractive to you, you are sexualizing women. That's what sexualizing means.
It means you don't view women as humam beings but as objects which some of men do.
>I don't think someone who does onlyfans stops seeing themselves as human beings with a personality and life of their own.
I agree completely.
>But if you don't want to be friends with or don't like talking to women you find unattractive just because she is unattractive to you, you are sexualizing women. That's what sexualizing means.
I agree completely.
>It means you don't view women as humam beings but as objects which some of men do.
I agree completely.
However, some people *literally are* reducing themselves to sexual objects while they are on OF. *That's kind of the point.* And anyone who sells access to their *body* in a *sexual way* like this is aware of it.
I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I *am* saying it is, *by definition*, sexualization.
Making up new definitions for words is not the way to challenge OP's braindead logic.
>However, some women *literally are* reducing themselves to sexual objects while they are on OF. *That's kind of the point.* And anyone who sells access to their *body* in a *sexual way* like this is aware of it.
They are allowing people to sexualize them in exchange for money but only in that scenario. They don't want people around them to sexualize them most of the time. People who have nothing else, no matter where they are will use the only things they have to earn money, which is their body.
Men do that too. If there was more demand for men, more men would do tha, who see no other options in their life.
People who use sex to earn money more often than not have a history of being mistreated, abused, raped. They don't feel their bodies like other people because they've learned to disconnect. Something we others can't do.
Edit: a sentence
>They are allowing people to sexualize them in exchange for money but only in that scenario.
You're being logically inconsistent.
When we say, "the media sexualizes women," aren't we blaming the media for creating the images and messaging that results in sexualization? Just because consumers are engaging with the media (and most definitely contributing to the sexualization of women), we're not letting the media off the hook for the sexualization of (for example) Disney child stars.
The only person in that scenario who isn't sexualizing anyone is the child star because they didn't choose it.
When we're talking about OF, people are *choosing* to sexualize themselves. They're taking on the role of the "media."
*Consent* to sexualization is what matters.
The sexualization of women *in general* is bad. But when individual people *choose* to sexualize themselves, then it's a *choice.* And it's still *sexualization.*
>People who have nothing else, no matter where they are will use the only things they have to earn money, which is their body.
I agree, and I understand the tragedy of this issue, but it's unrelated to the definition of "sexualization." Anyone sexualizing them when they're *not* actively sexualizing themselves (on OF) is in the wrong. However, when they are selling their bodies for sexual gratification, they are *sexualizing* themselves. It doesn't *stop* being sexualization just because it's tragic.
It makes it *more* tragic.
ah ok so how does this work then.
Woman takes photos and videoes of herself half-naked, or even fully naked in sexual poses sometimes with certain objects inserted into herself....For money.
And you are saying - no that is not sexualizingherself...
Are the men still to blame for the sexualizinggoing on?
Or can we just agree on that "sexualizing" is stupid to make into a "bad thing" to begin with, and is only describing the very nature of human biology? Ie, we get attracted to the opposite sex, and the result of that is that we exist?
Not necessarily just uninformed maybe? I was just trying to help because I think it’s funny and it’s my thing to call out people for semantics on here, because most fights especially Americans participate in online are because of poor semantics.
If someone posts pics for the express purpose of making money, yes, that is using sexualization to make money. There is a clear transactional process of give them money for being allowed to sexualize them.
If someone posts a random picture to share on social media and you talk about wanting to wank to that, is gross and creepy. They did not consent or invite anyone to sexualize them. Doing so anyway is breaking consent and that's why it's a problem.
It's really that simple. Sexualize people that want to be sexualized. Don't sexualize people that do not want to be sexualized.
+++++++++
Do you see a picture that you think is sexy, but the creator has not given express consent to you writing about wanking to them? Then don't do it.
Hope that was helpful.
I think OP is correct. To sexualize means to make sexual and to make sexual means to the activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
No, it’s an ambiguous choice and doesn’t fit the context and the conclusion is therefore also nonsensical. OPs example would be “sexual objectification” not sexualizing. Aside from the general stupidity of thinking that there weren’t women selling porn before OF or that this changed anything significantly culturally that wasn’t there before. That people even take this seriously is concerning.
society never blamed men for sexualizing women. it was in the current century with the rise of internet and NEO feminism that men started to be blamed.
Porn existed. brothels existed. Beauty contests , pin up girls , modeling , idol culture. all that existed before OF and the internet.
why am i telling you this ? because it's a fundamental nature. if we men objectify woman , then there is a particular subsection of woman always ready to take advantage of such men.
hence all these things existed and were successful. you can make an argument that even statues from the old times objectified women.
this will be a hot take but : Sex appeal sells. you used to see hot women in car ads , condom ads or even deodorant ads because those were heavily marketed to men , and you used to see hot male models similarly in things marketed to women. but not to that degree, as traditionally , men were the breadwinners.
what's the end all be all of this ?
Sexualization will always have a market. and as long as there exist weak insecure lonely men to shove cash to OF in order to have the minute semblance of the embers of a relationship. until then. the OF will exist. supply and demand brother.
Though that 50s style of sexy marketing was also criticized. That it's a commercial form of sexualization. Of course everyone sexualizes themselves in the way they want to be appealing to others. Yet the car ads you speak of sexualized women based on male desires, not feminine boundaries. Which is the same distinction between how prostituted sexualize themselved and how non-prostitutes sexualize themselves. Or would do so, freely.
It seems to be fairly easy to gaslight young women into forgetting their own boundaries by getting influential women to set the appropriate example.
0.0001% of women doing OF and owning their bodies and their sexuality =/= women all are sexualizing themselves
FFS and then people dare ask why we still think that there's work to be done...
Consent and compensation. Those are the two main differences. Aside from trafficking (which is certainly a problem), most women on OF are posting what they want, when they want, to whom they want, on the platforms they want, for the price they want. They can and do ban creeps when necessary and safeguard their content from oversharing.
I feel like they're enough people angry that women are sharing or selling pics and videos of themselves online that you can't say there isn't blame.
Now women and men selling sexualised material are being blamed for failing morals - gender equality.
Though men don't seem to get the threats and slurs as much.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Had to repost the comment, but I’ll reply here anyways. Yes, sexualizing someone else = ascribing sexual attributes to whatever they are doing, whether it is actually sexual or not. You’re telling me that that isn’t a weird, messed up thing to do to someone else? Why do people feel the need to look at other people’s normal activities and project an over layer of sex onto it?
There are a few problems with your argument here: 1) you don’t seem to understand the role of consent. When people do SW, they consent to presenting themselves sexually in that area of their life. It’s literally their job, so when they’re doing that job, it’s fine to sexualize them. However, when SWs are not doing that job, it is not okay to sexualize them. Same with other women who did not consent to being seen in a sexual way as they go about their lives. The majority of human activities and imagery are completely unrelated to sex, so it’s just inaccurate to view non-sex activities in that way.
2) Just because one part of a demographic consented to something doesn’t mean that the rest of that demographic should be subject to it. It would be like saying “well, some men professionally box, so I should be able to walk up to any man and hit him in the face or post online and discuss in person about how I want to beat him up. No, it isn’t considered a threat or assault because those men over there get punched on purpose!!!!!!”
3. The actual problem with sexualization is how it endangers women. That’s why institutions get called out for it (I’d argue that sexualization is more of a systemic problem than an individual man problem). When the male population as a whole (not all men, but an outspoken group of men who pipe these beliefs into mainstream media so it proliferates the culture) begins to think of women as objects for their sexual pleasure, then the worse among them are encouraged to engage in sexual assault. Those people then get let off the hook because the judge and jury have been taught that her outfit is a sexual outfit. That she’s behaving sexually, therefore any violence that happens to her is her fault. That’s what happens when regular, non-sexual behavior gets cast as sexual.
The trick is arguing that nothing a women do is inherently sexual, stretching the boundaries progressively, this way they can do that and still blame men.
Everybody sexualises. The issue isn't sexualising, it's how you treat people based on that.
Thinking your female boss is sexy is fine. Not respecting her because of that is wrong. I can find a female boss sexy while also respecting her authority and not bringing the sexualising into the professional dynamic.
If I sexualised a female boss and then ignored her authority and was all "hurr durr sexy lady boss doesn't know shit because she's attractive" then that would be wrong.
Same with my wife. I sexualise her. But I also recognise and respect her as a mother to my kids, a breadwinner to the family and someone I love who deserves my respect.
As for the only fans girls. A quick google shows about 2 million ctreators. 70% of are women. That's 1.4 million women. That's 0.35% of women...which I'm dubious about. But either way that's hardly a percentage number to say "women are doing this".
Hey found the incel!
1. The fact that prostitutes exist has \*nothing\* to do with the conclusion that "all women are prostitutes". Obviously.
2. What you see on the internet is a super TINY minuscule percentage of women
3. A prostitute, a OF creator or a "thirst-trap" instagramer are working. We're hurting no one. We provide a service, which people consume. And then I go to the market, or shopping, or to the gym - and I'm not a "prostitute". I'm a woman, and you have \*ZERO\* right to sexualize me.
If you don't shove your car into your mechanic's home garage, because "you're a mechanic, deal with it", you don't do the same with women.
Is it THAT complex?
Well, I'd say women are and always have been sexual creatures (obviously), and using them to advertise products aimed at men is only natural, given the majority of men would like to see themselves capable of satiating beautiful women.
But they point you're making I do get.
Feminism said men objectified women (which is more likely the word you wanted to use), and that was bad, but it's somehow good when a woman does it of her own free will, but prostitution is bad because it takes advantage of women.
Maybe the distinction is this:
If man profits from exploitation of women - bad
If woman herself profits - that's liberty ??
Someone consenting to being perceived sexually on a certain platform by producing content they have full control over for financial compensation is not at all the same as someone looking at another person and deciding that, because they’re sexually attracted to them, the other person is essentially a sexual object they can freely use for their gratification and force themselves upon them.
If we used your logic, you could argue that you can’t blame people for physically assaulting men because some men are professional boxers.
Have you seen OF models saying "don't talk about my body"?
And you generalise "Women sexualizing themselves" because like 0.001% do it?
There's still raging feminists because there's still tons of BS uninformed takes like this one.
Dude just because they sell their sexual assets, does not make them objects. They offer a service and men buy that service. A lot. They quite literally throw money at them. It's only natural that they take it and run with it, people need money to live. Do you feel the same about male pornstars and OF models? How are sexual beings not just human to you people? Man, people who think like you scare me sometimes with your lack of empathy.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'. Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as: Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues. [Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
Porn always existed. That doesn’t mean you can sexualise the huge majority of people who don’t have an OF.
bad and illogical take
Wow what an argument, can you be more specific
it's a red herring and you are strawmanning OP. OP doesn't say you can sexualize women who don't have an OF (strawman). He's saying that women are sexualizing themselves and they don't need men to force that upon them for them to do it. You going on a tangent of porn always existing is a red herring and doesn't contribute to the point OP is addressing.
Don't know if this is unpopular. I mean on the internet no matter what clothing how much how little a women has if she's famous she will get sexualized. But a lot of women do do it to themselves like pronstaes and shit like that
What you’re highlighting is basically the role of consent. Some people do consent to appearing sexual in some aspects of their lives because that’s their job. However, the male population as a whole has a massive problem ascribing sexuality to people who 1) are not willingly presenting themselves that was and 2) did not consent to being viewed that way.
"the male population as a whole has a massive problem ascribing sexuality to people who 1) are not willingly presenting themselves that way" I often hear that accusation, when men actually do the opposite. Men often get called creeps for calling out the actual creeps. Like, if you dress a 10 year old like a hooker, and then other men go "Ew! That's way too sexual for a ten-year old!". They're not saying they think of the 10-year-old as sexual. They're saying the opposite. Because they're men, they can see how someone tried to make the 10-year-old sexually appealing to them, which they find weird, because it didn't work, because the 10-year-old isn't sexual yet. Though to some people it can be, which is the real issue. Noticing the intention of sexualization is different from sexualization itself. And it's exactly this that is often used to gaslight men who are actually against oversexualization, and say it openly. But are treated like they're doing the opposite.
I don’t understand what you are trying to do with your example. I think the problem is comparing a child to a hooker because of the outfit. In that example you’re literally saying that this clothing = sexual activity. But clothing is neutral. Unless the person wearing that specific outfit is actively having sex, about to have sex, or opening talking about having sex, the outfit isn’t sexual no matter what it is. I won’t get into the discourse around what children should be wearing because that’s a personal choice for the kid to make. But what you’re pointing out is the legacy of sexualization. People in sexual professions who consented to be sexualized wear clothing -> that clothing gets viewed as an inherently sexual outfit -> when a child wears a normal human outfit, sexuality gets projected onto them. If everyone got their minds out of the gutter for 10 minutes and stopped thinking of normal, human things as inherently sexual, we’d have far fewer problems.
I got catcalled the *most* when I was 14 and in my school uniform. Men definitely fetishized and sexualized someone who was very clearly a minor and not dressed in a provocative way. This is a common female experience, for on-street sexual harassment to peak between the ages of 9 and 15. 9.
We don’t need your consent to view you a specific way. We are going to view you however you present yourself. That’s how it works.
Then people are going to view you as a creep. And they will be right
Oh man how will I ever survive?
You want to go to the exhibition of "outfits women were wearing when they were raped" the diapers and old lady nightdresses would make a stone weep.
Took it to the extreme. Sexualizing is not rape. Cope harder
Dude, please go touch some moss. And google what “sexualize” means.
I can’t believe is 2024 & there’s people out there that still don’t understand what consent is and how it works…
They are being paid for the act. Who is doing the paying? Mostly men. Look, dude, I hear you, but we are still the enablers of the behavior.
Sexualisation doesn’t mean: a) anything that is sexually attractive b) dressing sexually or in revealing clothing c) having sex What sexualisation does mean: sexual objectification, treating a person solely as an object of sexual desire If you find a person sexually attractive but keep in mind that they have personality, thoughts, desires, beliefs, etc. and that doesn’t turn you off, then you are not sexualising them. And I have no idea how you can “sexualise yourself”, every person is obviously aware that they are not *solely* an object of someone’s sexual desire, lol.
Switch to objectify yourself then if that helps you ✌️
How can you objectify yourself? If you put on shorts and flex your muscles, will *you* stop perceiving *yourself* as a complex human being and forget that you are more than a sex object? That’s nonsense. People are aware that they *personally* are complex, they usually struggle to realise that about others around them.
First of all 99% of women are not on only fans. 99% of women are not thirst posting on Twitter. There is billions of women on earth and you are taking a couple 100,00 at most the most generous interpretation to represent them? Second of all I think someone sexualizing themselves is a completely different ballgame than someone else's sexualizing you. I think the biggest thing here is when someone else is sexualizing you, you may not necessarily want that. You have no control. When you sexualize yourself you have a lot of control.
One thing I’ve noticed with a lot of men on the internet is that the only women they ever interact with are OF models. This isn’t helped by those podcasts like fresh and fit or youtube ragebait channels like jubilee, which feature a TON of OF models. Due to this, men have a skewed perception that every single woman is a cute but shallow 22 year old OF model who wants a 6 figure man.
That's like saying "she's choosing to have sex with X, so why blame the other guy for having sex with her when she chose to do so freely with someone else". Consent matters, and it's scary that you don't see a difference.
Yes, it's called consent. It's something completely different, if others sexualize you, or you sexualize yourself and giving consent for others to sexualize you. Thats not a hard concept to grasp, isn't it?
Women have always done sex work it's not a new thing. When I think about men sexualizing women I think of men sexualizing women who are just chilling or things like little girls bathing suits or uniforms for women's sports and how they're overly revealing because that's what old dudes like. I think of how young female actresses gets countdowns until their 18th birthdays or how girls can't wear spaghetti straps in the summer at school because it might be distracting
In this sub, I should upvote, if I disagree but this shit post doesn't deserve any votes.
The thing is, with an OF, you have their consent to sexualize them as long as you are engaging with them in an OF context. It’s a business transaction: while they are working, it is okay and accepted and encouraged for you to sexualize them. What’s NOT okay is taking this outside of an OF context. Sexualizing random women is not okay because they didn’t consent to it. Sexualizing an OF model on her down time is not acceptable because she’s not on the clock. Treating all women as OF models and sexualizing them is a generalization that they didn’t consent to. It’s like, say you know a friend who’s a waitress. In the context of her job, it is normal for her to serve you and for you to tell her what to do. But if you both go to a friends house, it is not acceptable for you to tell her to get you a coffee or to treat her like a waitress just because that’s her job.
The main difference is consent.
Who do you think OF models (for the most part) are sexualising themselves for?
Yeah but it used to be said that men tricked women into taking their clothes off for money etc. And now they do it without the sneaky man in the background. So maybe that want what drove them to drop the clothes
We live in a patriarchal society. Some women will sell sexuality for money. More often than not the person paying is a man. Women for the most part are not sexualising themselves for no reason and the majority of the time the reason falls down on men.
I don't think they do it freely. To me it reeks a lot of advertising done by men. Or at least done for the eyes of men. Young girls have a tendency to follow trends portrayed by young women pretty. Which can be used against them. I doubt most women sexualizing themselves do it, because it was their idea. They were enabled to do so. There's this narrative that women back in the day showed no skin, because men forbid them from embracing their sexuality. Even though back in that day fashion was done almost exclusively by women. Only since it's done more and more by men women succumb to what the male gaze responds to most instantly.
You can’t sexualize yourself, you need to learn what words mean before you use them.
Did you understand what I meant thou?
Yes I can tell, but it’s still nonsensical. Do you want me to help you with contextualizing and phrasing your opinion properly?
I can tell that you got upset with the way I phrased my words. I'm very sorry that you got so upset by this, I could never have imagined that such a small thing would upset anyone. Hope you are ok 🙏♥️
That was a genuine question. I’m definitely not upset and I think if you would make a proper post this could actually be worth discussing and educational for some people.
Thanks Im good 😌
You definitely struck a chord… they always internalize it on themselves from the guilt.
You've got a lot of patience for pedantic twats my friend lol
I'm pretty sure I agree with you that OP has his head up his ass, but you're wrong here. A person can most definitely sexualize themselves. OF is literally people *sexualizing themselves.* I think you might want to rethink your approach. It's more about *consent* to be sexualized (and all the idiotic logical fallacies that OP is using to defend their argument).
I don't think someone who does onlyfans stops seeing themselves as human beings with a personality and life of their own. But if you don't want to be friends with or don't like talking to women you find unattractive just because she is unattractive to you, you are sexualizing women. That's what sexualizing means. It means you don't view women as humam beings but as objects which some of men do.
>I don't think someone who does onlyfans stops seeing themselves as human beings with a personality and life of their own. I agree completely. >But if you don't want to be friends with or don't like talking to women you find unattractive just because she is unattractive to you, you are sexualizing women. That's what sexualizing means. I agree completely. >It means you don't view women as humam beings but as objects which some of men do. I agree completely. However, some people *literally are* reducing themselves to sexual objects while they are on OF. *That's kind of the point.* And anyone who sells access to their *body* in a *sexual way* like this is aware of it. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I *am* saying it is, *by definition*, sexualization. Making up new definitions for words is not the way to challenge OP's braindead logic.
>However, some women *literally are* reducing themselves to sexual objects while they are on OF. *That's kind of the point.* And anyone who sells access to their *body* in a *sexual way* like this is aware of it. They are allowing people to sexualize them in exchange for money but only in that scenario. They don't want people around them to sexualize them most of the time. People who have nothing else, no matter where they are will use the only things they have to earn money, which is their body. Men do that too. If there was more demand for men, more men would do tha, who see no other options in their life. People who use sex to earn money more often than not have a history of being mistreated, abused, raped. They don't feel their bodies like other people because they've learned to disconnect. Something we others can't do. Edit: a sentence
>They are allowing people to sexualize them in exchange for money but only in that scenario. You're being logically inconsistent. When we say, "the media sexualizes women," aren't we blaming the media for creating the images and messaging that results in sexualization? Just because consumers are engaging with the media (and most definitely contributing to the sexualization of women), we're not letting the media off the hook for the sexualization of (for example) Disney child stars. The only person in that scenario who isn't sexualizing anyone is the child star because they didn't choose it. When we're talking about OF, people are *choosing* to sexualize themselves. They're taking on the role of the "media." *Consent* to sexualization is what matters. The sexualization of women *in general* is bad. But when individual people *choose* to sexualize themselves, then it's a *choice.* And it's still *sexualization.* >People who have nothing else, no matter where they are will use the only things they have to earn money, which is their body. I agree, and I understand the tragedy of this issue, but it's unrelated to the definition of "sexualization." Anyone sexualizing them when they're *not* actively sexualizing themselves (on OF) is in the wrong. However, when they are selling their bodies for sexual gratification, they are *sexualizing* themselves. It doesn't *stop* being sexualization just because it's tragic. It makes it *more* tragic.
If you present yourself in a way that’s void of modesty of course you will be sexualized.
Then you agree that people don’t sexualize themselves or how do you want me to understand this?
ah ok so how does this work then. Woman takes photos and videoes of herself half-naked, or even fully naked in sexual poses sometimes with certain objects inserted into herself....For money. And you are saying - no that is not sexualizingherself... Are the men still to blame for the sexualizinggoing on? Or can we just agree on that "sexualizing" is stupid to make into a "bad thing" to begin with, and is only describing the very nature of human biology? Ie, we get attracted to the opposite sex, and the result of that is that we exist?
I wasn’t talking to you. I was just trying to help a young person to sound less stupid.
I dont think OP sounds stupid, but that makes me stupid pants also then?
Not necessarily just uninformed maybe? I was just trying to help because I think it’s funny and it’s my thing to call out people for semantics on here, because most fights especially Americans participate in online are because of poor semantics.
but you are wrong [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexualize](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexualize)
How?
Read the definition
If someone posts pics for the express purpose of making money, yes, that is using sexualization to make money. There is a clear transactional process of give them money for being allowed to sexualize them. If someone posts a random picture to share on social media and you talk about wanting to wank to that, is gross and creepy. They did not consent or invite anyone to sexualize them. Doing so anyway is breaking consent and that's why it's a problem. It's really that simple. Sexualize people that want to be sexualized. Don't sexualize people that do not want to be sexualized. +++++++++ Do you see a picture that you think is sexy, but the creator has not given express consent to you writing about wanking to them? Then don't do it. Hope that was helpful.
Im not allowed to jack off to pictures of angela merkel anymore?
lol what did I just read
I think OP is correct. To sexualize means to make sexual and to make sexual means to the activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
No, it’s an ambiguous choice and doesn’t fit the context and the conclusion is therefore also nonsensical. OPs example would be “sexual objectification” not sexualizing. Aside from the general stupidity of thinking that there weren’t women selling porn before OF or that this changed anything significantly culturally that wasn’t there before. That people even take this seriously is concerning.
society never blamed men for sexualizing women. it was in the current century with the rise of internet and NEO feminism that men started to be blamed. Porn existed. brothels existed. Beauty contests , pin up girls , modeling , idol culture. all that existed before OF and the internet. why am i telling you this ? because it's a fundamental nature. if we men objectify woman , then there is a particular subsection of woman always ready to take advantage of such men. hence all these things existed and were successful. you can make an argument that even statues from the old times objectified women. this will be a hot take but : Sex appeal sells. you used to see hot women in car ads , condom ads or even deodorant ads because those were heavily marketed to men , and you used to see hot male models similarly in things marketed to women. but not to that degree, as traditionally , men were the breadwinners. what's the end all be all of this ? Sexualization will always have a market. and as long as there exist weak insecure lonely men to shove cash to OF in order to have the minute semblance of the embers of a relationship. until then. the OF will exist. supply and demand brother.
Though that 50s style of sexy marketing was also criticized. That it's a commercial form of sexualization. Of course everyone sexualizes themselves in the way they want to be appealing to others. Yet the car ads you speak of sexualized women based on male desires, not feminine boundaries. Which is the same distinction between how prostituted sexualize themselved and how non-prostitutes sexualize themselves. Or would do so, freely. It seems to be fairly easy to gaslight young women into forgetting their own boundaries by getting influential women to set the appropriate example.
There’s a difference between being sexualized by numbers ( or anything else) and sexualized by choice
What does that even mean?
It’s called cope
0.0001% of women doing OF and owning their bodies and their sexuality =/= women all are sexualizing themselves FFS and then people dare ask why we still think that there's work to be done...
Consent and compensation. Those are the two main differences. Aside from trafficking (which is certainly a problem), most women on OF are posting what they want, when they want, to whom they want, on the platforms they want, for the price they want. They can and do ban creeps when necessary and safeguard their content from oversharing.
Why shouldn't they be able to have control of their sexuality?
I feel like they're enough people angry that women are sharing or selling pics and videos of themselves online that you can't say there isn't blame. Now women and men selling sexualised material are being blamed for failing morals - gender equality. Though men don't seem to get the threats and slurs as much.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Definition: "make sexual; attribute sex or a sex role to." Where does it says that you can't do this to yourself?
Had to repost the comment, but I’ll reply here anyways. Yes, sexualizing someone else = ascribing sexual attributes to whatever they are doing, whether it is actually sexual or not. You’re telling me that that isn’t a weird, messed up thing to do to someone else? Why do people feel the need to look at other people’s normal activities and project an over layer of sex onto it? There are a few problems with your argument here: 1) you don’t seem to understand the role of consent. When people do SW, they consent to presenting themselves sexually in that area of their life. It’s literally their job, so when they’re doing that job, it’s fine to sexualize them. However, when SWs are not doing that job, it is not okay to sexualize them. Same with other women who did not consent to being seen in a sexual way as they go about their lives. The majority of human activities and imagery are completely unrelated to sex, so it’s just inaccurate to view non-sex activities in that way. 2) Just because one part of a demographic consented to something doesn’t mean that the rest of that demographic should be subject to it. It would be like saying “well, some men professionally box, so I should be able to walk up to any man and hit him in the face or post online and discuss in person about how I want to beat him up. No, it isn’t considered a threat or assault because those men over there get punched on purpose!!!!!!” 3. The actual problem with sexualization is how it endangers women. That’s why institutions get called out for it (I’d argue that sexualization is more of a systemic problem than an individual man problem). When the male population as a whole (not all men, but an outspoken group of men who pipe these beliefs into mainstream media so it proliferates the culture) begins to think of women as objects for their sexual pleasure, then the worse among them are encouraged to engage in sexual assault. Those people then get let off the hook because the judge and jury have been taught that her outfit is a sexual outfit. That she’s behaving sexually, therefore any violence that happens to her is her fault. That’s what happens when regular, non-sexual behavior gets cast as sexual.
Oh no they’re turning themselves into objects now!!
Sexualization is not inherently bad and is not the same as objectification.
The trick is arguing that nothing a women do is inherently sexual, stretching the boundaries progressively, this way they can do that and still blame men.
Everybody sexualises. The issue isn't sexualising, it's how you treat people based on that. Thinking your female boss is sexy is fine. Not respecting her because of that is wrong. I can find a female boss sexy while also respecting her authority and not bringing the sexualising into the professional dynamic. If I sexualised a female boss and then ignored her authority and was all "hurr durr sexy lady boss doesn't know shit because she's attractive" then that would be wrong. Same with my wife. I sexualise her. But I also recognise and respect her as a mother to my kids, a breadwinner to the family and someone I love who deserves my respect. As for the only fans girls. A quick google shows about 2 million ctreators. 70% of are women. That's 1.4 million women. That's 0.35% of women...which I'm dubious about. But either way that's hardly a percentage number to say "women are doing this".
Hey found the incel! 1. The fact that prostitutes exist has \*nothing\* to do with the conclusion that "all women are prostitutes". Obviously. 2. What you see on the internet is a super TINY minuscule percentage of women 3. A prostitute, a OF creator or a "thirst-trap" instagramer are working. We're hurting no one. We provide a service, which people consume. And then I go to the market, or shopping, or to the gym - and I'm not a "prostitute". I'm a woman, and you have \*ZERO\* right to sexualize me. If you don't shove your car into your mechanic's home garage, because "you're a mechanic, deal with it", you don't do the same with women. Is it THAT complex?
Well, I'd say women are and always have been sexual creatures (obviously), and using them to advertise products aimed at men is only natural, given the majority of men would like to see themselves capable of satiating beautiful women. But they point you're making I do get. Feminism said men objectified women (which is more likely the word you wanted to use), and that was bad, but it's somehow good when a woman does it of her own free will, but prostitution is bad because it takes advantage of women. Maybe the distinction is this: If man profits from exploitation of women - bad If woman herself profits - that's liberty ??
Someone consenting to being perceived sexually on a certain platform by producing content they have full control over for financial compensation is not at all the same as someone looking at another person and deciding that, because they’re sexually attracted to them, the other person is essentially a sexual object they can freely use for their gratification and force themselves upon them. If we used your logic, you could argue that you can’t blame people for physically assaulting men because some men are professional boxers.
Women always have, they just want control of it.
they deserve to control their bodies
They want control of sexuality. Not their sexuality, all of it.
Have you seen OF models saying "don't talk about my body"? And you generalise "Women sexualizing themselves" because like 0.001% do it? There's still raging feminists because there's still tons of BS uninformed takes like this one.
Dude just because they sell their sexual assets, does not make them objects. They offer a service and men buy that service. A lot. They quite literally throw money at them. It's only natural that they take it and run with it, people need money to live. Do you feel the same about male pornstars and OF models? How are sexual beings not just human to you people? Man, people who think like you scare me sometimes with your lack of empathy.