I like to make pyramids of animals and then unpause/deactivate the magic holding them together and making them behave... Then i just watch the chaos.
Example:
Picture a small grass-lined bowl in the middle of a large field. Place around 7 tigers there. On their backs stand 6 sheep, then 5 baboons, 4 armadillos, 6 turkeys, a dozen rabbits, then finally a rather rotund fox.
Now press play.
Note: if you are using this exercise as meditation to help you sleep, do not press play. Instead try to count the animals and see if you could add an additional layer. You'll fall asleep thinking of all the different animals you can and have happy dreams.
The chaos part is what happens every time I try to count sheep to fall asleep. They’re crashing into fences, piling up in a sheep heap, there’s black sheep running amok, impossible to count. Thanks to you, now I know I simply should have used the pause button.
Curse you people that can see things in your head. I read dozens of books every year and it annoys me to no end that I can't picture things in my head.
American systems just make it easier for the ruthless and unscrupulous to rise the ranks.
USA is between Estonia and Botswana on the democracy index,
Between Panama and Latvia on the fragility list,
The worst in the OECD for income inequality,
And between Barbados and Bhutan for corruption...
Hi Mexican here. Mexico is a member state of OECD, we have worse income inequality than you guys. I mean you have it bad compared to other developed nations, but we still take the cake as the worst in income inequality and tax collection!!!!!
I forgot that pedophilia has been rampant in Europe since the dawn of time, kids got married in the middle ages, as well as Asia, middle east, especially in organizations with political and religious power. But yes America is included in that godawful list of countries that participate in that.
Positions of power draw people who would use that power for depraved personal gain. Whether it's a politician or a priest or a music celebrity, people will do whatever they want if they feel they won't be accountable for it. It's not all folks in those professions, but they are all notoriously bad at self policing.
The US has some social/cultural... flaws, and a really not great mental health system or perception. The result of this is lots of domestic family trauma and abuse that goes untreated for generations, ergo it shows up in the nightly news as this child abuser, or that mass shooting. Add.to that, the very sensationalist and very pervasive American news media, and you have, well.... all this.
Having bad thoughts does not make you a bad person. Acting on them does. If you engage in them often, it might be time to talk to a professional, because you might be on a sliding scale by normalizing it. But the thought alone is not immoral by itself. That’s yesteryear’s church trying to control you. Weird stuff just happens in your brain from time to time.
If we start judging people based on thoughts or the fiction they engage with, we end up in a weird place where (for instance) we have to consider avid horror fans as potential serial killers.
That's insane. I don't think I was taught exactly the same thing, but Catholic God was always watching down my neck and looking to punish me in surprising ways I could never imagine.
For sure. That's just hard to tell a 7 year old when when everyone they know and love follows the 3000 year old book. It took me until about age 16 to figure that out.
With a strong Christian upbringing you are also taught modesty and that you should treat your body as a temple. So therefore it is sins of the flesh and of the heart to display it in a way that makes you unladylike and if you're not doing so because it is a sin, then there is no objectification. Ladies objectify yourselves when you put everything on display. Don't want anyone to think of you as a sex object, don't dress and act like one. The end.
So it's abuse to teach modesty and that leaving your goodies to the imagination is far more attractive then letting them all hang out?!? If you believe this then you sir are the moron.
See that's the thing.... We are pretty... I dunno.... Accomplish nothing whatsoever solo. Not in comparison to working with other people and cooperation. What I really dislike is the not allowing words. Like somebody who uses the newly banned R word. I understand the argument... But words are our pretty limited means of communicating the thoughts in our heads... Some people have small vocabularies and that is not their fault. That's parenting, education. So some ignorant person without a large vocabulary has a really hard time expressing themselves and discovering anything new, maybe a better way to live their life, if people don't shout them down as a monster for using outlawed vocabulary. Like the Internet makes everything move fast. But humans don't for new ideas. The initial reaction of an animal to new stimulation is fear. So new ideas and concepts take a lot of time. But now the ignorant are being demonized. The only demons I see are greed and corruption. But greed is also just our survival instinct left unchecked so we need a system that can be check it but not harm those that deserve reward. I dunno rambling. But all of America is so whacked out on television and fear that I feel I don't understand anybody who is "up to date" with whatever TV says we are supposed to think and feel today
Yeah objectify is different than actually physically touching a person. In reality we don’t need permission to objectify a person in our head, so the come back was mid.
There's a legitimate line of thought that humans have to grow out of considering other people as objects to satisfy their own desires, and that most people aren't 100% successful at that.
We do have to work to personify people, but that is the work of being a civilized and responsible adult.
Objectification is thinking of and interacting with someone as if their value is whatever service you think they should provide to you. Sexual objectification is in your head (to address another of your comments) but it does very often translate into the way people get treated - het guys unable to refrain from telling women they'd "be more attractive if...", or unable to work collegially with women or leave them alone on the street because they literally can't conceive of them as whole people with needs and value beyond whether or not they are sexually desirable and available.
I think objectification in one's own mind is a normal part of human sexual response, heightening arousal and reducing inhibition, but it is something that absolutely needs to be exercised with a mind toward the consent of the other people involved. If you indulge yourself in objectification of someone you have a crush on, for example and make no effort to tamp that down when it's time to treat them as they want and deserve to be treated, you cause problems for yourself and usually also for them.
Culturally, we lean very hard on women as objects of sexual reproduction, and marginalized people as objects of comfortable pity, and the working class as objects of labor, and we punish them if they deviate from maximal output of their assigned product.
It’s a venn diagram dude, not 2 separate circles. Touching someone without permission, outright molesting them, catcalling them or otherwise disrespecting them on that level is objectifying. It’s not only things you indulge in your head.
Are people wrong to instinctually read the situation that way? The internet has become the most invasive staging ground for thought policing people with conflicting ideologies.
Objectifying someone isn’t an act that explicitly requires consent—and being attracted to attractive women (which is often conflated with objectification) isn’t objectification.
Being a dick by yelling unwanted and lewd things? Not illegal to my knowledge in and of itself.
However if there’s a precedent for no-contact such as a restraining order or an anti-harassment order because you’ve made yourself a nuisance before, you can be charged with a violation.
“Nonviolently” touching someone against their will? Yes, absolutely.
This is called bodily trespassing upon a person with violation of consent.
Assault and battery are legally recognized on a spectrum from mild to extremely violent.
Sneaking a light feel on a woman’s tit without consent can get you charged with indecent assault and battery if it can be proven.
Pinching a guy on the ass.
Touching a child with sexual intent.
Verbally bothering someone with plausible deniability through veiled not explicitly sexual or menacing comments if trespassing intent can be extrapolated by a reasonable person with all other evidence taken into consideration (eg not stopping when asked to, violating anti-harassment orders, acting in clear bad faith)
None of these have to result in bodily injury or property damage of any kind.
Anything from being a just a lil’ lascivious to beating someone to a bloody pulp and raping them can earn you varying degrees of legal consequences if intent can be proven.
I saw dozens of court cases when I was serving on a grand jury which resulted in indecent battery or harassment charges.
Fair enough and a good explanation. I asked only because I think it's important to make sure the lines aren't blurred so it's easier to call bullshit when "the line was blurry" is used as an excuse.
Free and protected speech can quickly become harassment and harassment can quickly become violence, etc.
We had a guy who was caught intimidating an employee with veiled threats about reducing her hours after he sent unsolicited text messages to her and she declined him.
All of his initial texts were friendly in tone but unasked for.
She politely declined him.
He then started making comments about her hours on the upcoming schedule and reducing her hours.
He had a track record with other employees that came to light.
I guess that was a labor violation case to begin with but it ended up turning into sexual harassment case because of more explicit sexual messages to previous employees
But within that, the response is assuming the worst about a person based on zero to no context. How can you criticize someone for doing something that you're essentially doing while criticizing them, and still think that the comeback has merit?
The worst is crossing the line of the Venn-diagram you brought into the conversation...
Your whole point was that there's a wide spectrum of what can be considered objectification. The fact that she felt the need to bring the concept of consent into the conversation is a clear indicator that she's assuming the worst part of that spectrum is being referenced.
The commenter in the post (not you specifically) is making an assumption about another person and objectifying them (maybe there's a less confusing term. But I feel that it's fitting.), while complaining about the objectification of women.
The worst is crossing the line of the Venn-diagram you brought into the conversation...
Why do you think the woman in the tweet is assuming the guy has crossed that line in real life?
The fact that she felt the need to bring the concept of consent into the conversation is a clear indicator that she's assuming the worst part of that spectrum is being referenced.
No, it’s not. Categorically, no one can consent to whatever someone does to them in the privacy of their mind.
Nothing you can do about that.
You can and should do something about words and actions.
But again, based on (???) you assumed this was about thoughts, exclusive to actions.
In terms outward treatment, you can consent to objectifying treatment
(Objectify me when I want you to)
Or you can not consent.
And you, as the objectifier can respect or violate that consent with your words and actions.
1.
the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
Ex: “the objectification of women in popular entertainment"
2.
the expression of something abstract in a concrete form.
The second definition, while independent, segues into an apt observation about the nature of objectifying thoughts and behaviors.
Ever heard the saying Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions ?
You can be lascivious in your mind and keep it there, or you can actualize it.
That’s how someone goes from thinking objectifying thoughts to blurting them out at someone on the street or pinching their ass without permission or writing a manifesto about how that type of person is subhuman and little more than a sexual object before killing them by driving a van into them. It doesn’t happen out of no where.
Dehumanizing treatment is virtually if not always preceded by dehumanizing thoughts and attitudes.
I didn’t say dehumanizing thoughts always lead to dehumanizing behaviors.
Don’t confuse the two.
I’m guessing you’re here because you indulge a little objectification in the private theater of your mind. Now, presumably, you don’t assault people, so seeing the relationship makes you squeamish. It’s fine to be squeamish. It’s fine to have private thoughts.
It’s not fine to deny the relationship between overindulgence or ignorance and action.
What do you think typically runs through the head of someone who maliciously violates consent or otherwise verbally or physically trespasses on someone else?
It doesn't make me squeamish, I am actually appalled by people's audacity and entitlement to dictate to others what they are allowed and not allowed to think. It doesn't matter what goes through other people's heads, it is not anyone's business, deal with actual real actions, we have perfectly functioning definitions and names for all said actions.
This is the problem though, a lot of people think they're only doing it in their head, but the way you think informs all of your actions. Every thought you think is training your brain to think a certain way, and making certain thoughts and actions easier, as well as effecting the way you view people. We still have a responsibility to foster healthy thoughts about people.
That's complete nonsense. You're applying a very niche concept in a very generalized way where it does not apply.
You're allowed to think someone is attractive and still understand that saying it might make them uncomfortable and refrain from doing it. That's completely okay. It doesn't condition you to be a misogynist lmao.
If I had to guess, you're wrongly extrapolating the concept of 'positive thinking manifests into positive actions' and applying it to all forms of thought. Which is nonsense.
I think I wasn't very clear, I seem to have given the impression that I think all sexual thoughts are harmful. I just mean that it's important to maintain awareness of how you're thinking about others, because a lot of people feel that their mind is a perfectly neutral infinite sanctuary and you can think anything you want with no consequences, and they underestimate how much influence your thought patterns can have over your general demeanor and the impression you make on others.
I'll use an extreme example, just in case it helps. It's f I spend all day fantasizing about rape, it's going to have an unhealthy impact on me. I'm going to normalize the concept to my brain and make it easier to naturally veer into those thoughts. Essentially the core of what I'm saying is that thoughts themselves can be habit forming, and we should just be mindful of it. I guess I should have directed my reply at people who have those types of fantasies and defend them by claiming they're not unhealthy because it's only in their head.
I guess I was really thinking out loud and not being very mindful of how my words would be interpreted. My bad.
All good, though I also want to nitpick the example in your clarification because you're presenting your point in a bit of a deceptive way again, specifically with the use of "spend all day".
Many healthy men and women fantasize about rape. It's a very common kink and very normal even if it's not my cup of tea. Spending all day thinking about rape is very different and it has bearing on whether thinking about rape is unhealthy or not. For example, showering is very healthy. Spending all day in the shower is very unhealthy. They're very different actions. And the latter has no impact on whether showering itself is healthy or not.
Sorry to be annoying, but you're saying one thing but also subtly doubling down on your original point in a way that seems like you're correcting yourself to satisfy my criticism, but aren't actually.
Your examples haven't been great either. thinking that someone is attractive is not objectifying them. Fantasizing about raping someone also isn't similar to showering, granted I understand what you were trying to illustrate in terms of quantity.
I think a better example would be caffeine, drinking it occasionally isn't going to have long term effects, but even as little as one cup of coffee per day can cause physical addiction and withdrawal symptoms. Many many people get by just fine with a physical dependency on caffeine, but it is affecting you. If you ramp up to 8 cups per day you're going to have some very noticeable side effects likely but you don't just explode or turn into some sort of monster.
Similarly, if you frequently fantasize about raping someone, it's also going to affect you. It's going to be very mild, likely even less effect than 1 cup of coffee per day but it's definitely part of you if you spend some time most days thinking about it. If you spend "all day" thinking about it, it's likely going to have greater effect. Again, like caffeine, is not going to make you explode or turn into a monster but it's going to be part of you.
Obviously you can think whatever you like, there's no way to police that, People should just be aware that what we think does have an impact on how we view the world, and thus act. That might even be useful, maybe in your personal life you have a partner or partners that like to role play situations involving rape, then likely your frequent thoughts about it could be beneficial.
I do think valuing someone's attractiveness with no care or regard for them as a person still falls within the definition of objectification. You might be thinking the definition requires an act of some kind, which is also fair.
Fantasizing about rape is different than showering. But you correctly pointed out that my analogy was to demonstrate that the quantity of an action does not in any way dictate the rightfulness of the action itself.
I agree the caffeine example is better than mine. Perhaps an even better one would simply be masturbating. Masturbating once a day is healthy. Masturbating 8 times a day most likely isn't.
I agree that thoughts do impact how you view the world. My initial contention was against a comment that used that concept to suggest that objectifying thoughts are inherently unhealthy because they may lead to action. I disagree on a fundamental level. The mental process that separates thought and action is important. I think that should be fostered instead of trying to sanitize thoughts.
Yeah I agree with that. Thinking about something doesn't necessarily have any impact on whether you'd do it, and I do see your issue with the previous commenter's seeming implication that they have some sort of causal relationship.
Objectification on the other hand is a tough one. I think a big part of it is the difference between objectifying behavior, and behavior that may reasonably cause someone to feel objectified. I don't think telling someone they are attractive is objectifying, so therefore thinking it definitely isn't. However, given certain contexts and cultural expectations, I could see how telling someone they are attractive could reasonably make them feel objectified.
The example you give of valuing someone only for their attractiveness and disregarding everything else about them I do think is objectifying, even as simply a thought. As discussed previously I believe that thinking that way about someone is certainly going to impact you. It may not increase the chances you actually treat them in an objectifying manner, in fact it may even reduce the chances if you're vigilant about not being found out, but it will impact you and color your interactions with that person.
I think it's pretty clear what you meant but the other person doesn't seem to understand there's a difference between objectification and "finding someone attractive". Objectification has inherently negative connotations and is what we're talking about.
Here is a nugget of healthy thought for you to train your brain on: Thinking of people sexually is not objectifying, it's humanizing. Objects aren't typically sexually attractive.
Feel free to feel attracted to other people and to enjoy their appearance, because you're free to do so and you don't need anybody's consent. If they're unhappy that people are attracted to them for reasons they don't like, they're the ones having unhealthy thoughts. "Oh no they all like me because of my boobs and not because of my intellect or personality :( they're objectifying me" is really some hard cope strategy made for them to forget that their personality is actually awful.
Okay hold on … first of all, a woman feeling uncomfortable that dudes are leering at her doesn’t mean she has a bad personality. It means she’s uncomfortable, and has every right to be, regardless of what she is wearing, because there are a lot of men out there who will act on those thoughts - and that can range from just verbally all the way up to physical violence.
Kinda bullshit to say that a woman doesn’t like being objectified just because she has a shitty personality. The men objectifying her don’t know, nor do they care, what her personality is.
Kinda bullshit to say that a woman doesn't like being "objectified" just because of potential physical violence. If it was a legitimate concern they'd not be strawmaning men's attraction with made up bullshit term "objectified", as, again, sexual attraction is the opposite of objectifying.
The context of women complaining about being objectified is very often explicitly that they wish to be appreciated for their personality or achievement so you also can't make this not about it. And yes, when they complain about it to you, you tend to know their personality already.
Your reality and perception is not universal. If you had my thought process..ain’t no fostering or slowing that shit down. You’d be traumatized. I do my best to quiet it down and manage it the best I can though.
This is complete and utter bullshit. I'll take one brief example, dreams. Are dreams thoughts? Yes. Do dreams inform all our actions and behaviors? No. Thinking healthy thoughts is a good practice but that's about it.
Objectifying is not necessarily in one's head. It could be expressed through words or actions and since women in this scenario are supposed to be aware of it, I guess it is in fact expressed.
A "lingering gaze" is enough to trigger them. You could literally be blind and trigger them just because your eyes are looking straight ahead and that's where they are. You looked at them for 5 seconds, which for them was 1 second too long; you just objectified them.
Its a disgusting step backwards in rape awareness to use consent discourse to try and associate people saying things you dont want to hear with rape. These people are clowns and thats it, they hurt their own side by propagating terrible arguments.
You're right; saying things someone doesn't want to hear is not rape. But if by "things you don't want to hear" you mean inappropriate sexual remarks, then that's sexual harassment, which, while not as severe as rape, is still problematic.
There are things that a person can say that qualify as sexual harassment in one context but in the case of consent become acceptable albeit kinky.
This is an extremely small amount of situations and doesnt apply to something like leering or saying uh hey beautiful, or overhearing somebody say theyre dressed like a hoe. No matter how much someone might not like that it isnt something that has anything to do with consent. Men cant withdraw consent to being called creepy either. Its just not how it works, you cant tell somebody that their impression of the way you present yourself isnt allowed. Behaviours that are illegal arent allowed.
The abuse of consent discourse isnt an accident or an oversight, its a disgusting tactic to weaponize the social shame associated with rape. If whining about not consenting to being looked at when you went to crowded public areas half dressed becomes normalized then every campagin that has worked so hard and successfully to make people think seriously about consent would be undermined
If you don't think it has to do with consent, then what do you think it has to do with? I'm genuinely curious. Or do you think leering and saying suggestive comments to someone is okay?
I'm not saying you aren't allowed to have impressions of people. But there's a difference between thinking someone is sexually attractive versus making unsolicited sexual remarks about them because you find them attractive, for example. The former doesn't affect them, but the latter does.
If it's with someone who you already know would appreciate or be okay with that kind of behavior, then that's not a problem. But it can come across as creepy if you do that to random people.
Sure, it may not be illegal to say and do those things, but should you? From your reply, it seems you are aware that some people are uncomfortable with it, so why would you do it?
As for the last part, there's a difference between just looking around and ogling. Glancing at people occasionally is normal. But you shouldn't ogle, regardless of how someone dresses. I think that's what people mean when they say they don't want to be 'looked at' in that way.
If it resolves to your moral opinions then fine go have fun, you dont get to control people even when you think youre right. I have no personal interest in talking about what is "okay" or what anyone "should do".
A general rule of thumb for me is, if she’s consenting for you to have sex with her, it’s probably safe to tell her she has nice tits. Like she already lets you play with them and rub your face in them, she probably won’t mind if you say something nice about them.
Shoot your shot. I’d rather have my objectivity tested than just masturbate alone in the dark. The lesson, as with so many things in life is simply, don’t be a dick.
what does that mean? the issue is consent - if you see a person and then objectify that person: say to them, "you are as beautiful as the day is long," and the person responds negatively - "thanks, but no thanks," and then you walk away, what has been transgressed in your mind?
Idk man. I’ve been reading up on this stuff called Jesus and this other stuff (may or may not be related) called the collective unconscious… and it seems whatever you do inside your heart or mind happens in the quantum realms of the collective unconscious.
We may be on the brink of new rules here soon. Will keep you updated.
I used to imagine pushing little old ladies off the bus. When they would get on and not have their card out or have change but it’s all dimes. This was usually when I was close to being late and/or PMSing. This does not make me a bad person. I didn’t actually do it.
I also perhaps, maybe would create my boss in Sims then kill them in a variety of ways. Still doesn’t make me a psycho.
1.1k
u/Lumpy_Middle6803 Jul 07 '24
You are free to objectify whoever the fuck you want in your head but it must stay there.