Random Thread

[malloc]

I'm almost certain the basic female body type is a blob: lots of fat to nourish infants with. How did the absurd pattern of being extra chubby in the top and bottom halves and spindly thin in the middle come to be interpreted as "curvy"?

Something I have often wondered myself. My own intuitions are not very helpful here, despite much introspection. It feels like asking why chocolate or pesto sauce tastes good to me. I have some vague thoughts about proportionality and visual clarity influencing my sense of beauty, but that could simply be a post hoc rationale for mere gut reaction for all I know.

[rotting bones]

Something I have often wondered myself. My own intuitions are not very helpful here, despite much introspection. It feels like asking why chocolate or pesto sauce tastes good to me. I have some vague thoughts about proportionality and visual clarity influencing my sense of beauty, but that could simply be a post hoc rationale for mere gut reaction for all I know.

Can you elaborate on your theory?

[malloc]

Something I have often wondered myself. My own intuitions are not very helpful here, despite much introspection. It feels like asking why chocolate or pesto sauce tastes good to me. I have some vague thoughts about proportionality and visual clarity influencing my sense of beauty, but that could simply be a post hoc rationale for mere gut reaction for all I know.

Can you elaborate on your theory?

Not sure I would call it a theory so much as my own personal tastes, and certainly not a universal theory of beauty. From my perspective, the blob shape (as you put it) seems formless like an amoeba and unwieldy like an overstuffed grocery bag. Whereas the extra chubby bottom half and tapered waist evoke stability like a pyramid and presents a clear silhouette.

[alynnidalar]

sure do love logging into the internet to see perfectly normal women’s bodies described as “blobs”, “unwieldy”, an “absurd pattern”, and “like an amoeba”

[Ares Land]

A further comment on the mystery of the female body: have you tried looking at some? I am sure you will find such study enlightening.

Also: don't take evolutionary psychology too seriously.

[rotting bones]

sure do love logging into the internet to see perfectly normal women’s bodies described as “blobs”, “unwieldy”, an “absurd pattern”, and “like an amoeba”

I'm sorry if my post was offensive. I must admit, I don't understand why. Using reductive language to break obsessive attachment is standard stoic practice. My own username is rotting bones. Also, the "absurd pattern" I'm referring to doesn't exist in reality AFAIK. (Edit: Although it has sometimes been sculpted artificially.)

[malloc]

Same here, quite sorry for some questionable phrasing. I did make it clear that this merely reflected my personal intuitions rather than any normative bodily standard. Rotting bones asked why I found some physical features more attractive than others and I tried my best to describe my honest thoughts on the matter.

[KathTheDragon]

Using reductive language to break obsessive attachment is standard stoic practice.

Has it occurred to you that being reductionist towards women in this way is... not great? You're literally objectifying women.

[Linguoboy]

Using reductive language to break obsessive attachment is standard stoic practice.

Well then, if it's "standard stoic practice" then by all means carry on. We know those guys would never have said anything insensitive or offensive about women's bodies.

[rotting bones]

Has it occurred to you that being reductionist towards women in this way is... not great? You're literally objectifying women.

My intention is not to denigrate women, but to mortify my own creepy attachment to women's bodies.

“Like seeing roasted meat and other dishes in front of you and suddenly realizing: This is a dead fish. A dead bird. A dead pig. Or that this noble vintage is grape juice, and the purple robes are sheep wool dyed with shellfish blood. Or making love—something rubbing against your penis, a brief seizure and a little cloudy liquid. Perceptions like that—latching onto things and piercing through them, so we see what they really are. That’s what we need to do all the time—all through our lives when things lay claim to our trust—to lay them bare and see how pointless they are, to strip away the legend that encrusts them. Pride is a master of deception: when you think you’re occupied in the weightiest business, that’s when he has you in his spell.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

In general, I don't agree that objectification is a bad thing. IME the thinkers most successful at not objectifying people are heartless capitalists and genocidal maniacs on the far right. When you see the other tribe as an evil invasion, you are not objectifying them in the sense of seeing people as just bodies.

That said, objectification can be a bad thing when used for bad purposes like objectifying women for one's own gratification.

[rotting bones]

Well then, if it's "standard stoic practice" then by all means carry on. We know those guys would never have said anything insensitive or offensive about women's bodies.

I'm open to being corrected.

[KathTheDragon]

Has it occurred to you that being reductionist towards women in this way is... not great? You're literally objectifying women.

My intention is not to denigrate women, but to mortify my own creepy attachment to women's bodies.

And you can do that without reducing us to just our bodies, thanks.

My initial reaction to reading it was "this rubs me the same wrong way as seeing people say "a female"", which is to say, being treated like a Thing for study and observation, and maybe you need to catch one for closer inspection now and then. You know, like an animal.

[alynnidalar]

My intention is not to denigrate women, but to mortify my own creepy attachment to women's bodies.

Mortifying your self-described creepy attachment to women's bodies sounds like the sort of thing you should sort out with a therapist. I, for one, do not care to be audience to it.

I genuinely am not sure how to respond to all... *waves vaguely* all of that. I've written out several responses and none seemed adequate. I guess what I will try to say in simple terms is that human bodies are inextricably linked with a human person. You cannot separate the two. Every body belongs to a person. When you objectify the body--which you both are quite literally doing by describing women's bodies in terms of objects--you are objectifying the person. You are denying that there is a person inhabiting that body. And I don't give a shit if a dead guy two thousand years ago disagrees.

[rotting bones]

And you can do that without reducing us to just our bodies, thanks.

I'm not sure how you imagine that would work.

My initial reaction to reading it was "this rubs me the same wrong way as seeing people say "a female"", which is to say, being treated like a Thing for study and observation, and maybe you need to catch one for closer inspection now and then. You know, like an animal.

Well, if you are interested in arguing the point, the way I see it, the primary mechanism by which women are denigrated is not by objectifying them but by attributing a false subjectivity to them, saying that women enjoy serving men. Also, the primary mechanism by which women could free themselves from this false subjectivity is through an emancipatory self-objectification, objectifying their own bodies in a manner which they themselves enjoy. This enjoyment should be their enjoyment, and not someone else's.

[rotting bones]

Mortifying your self-described creepy attachment to women's bodies sounds like the sort of thing you should sort out with a therapist. I, for one, do not care to be audience to it.

Okay, but just to be clear, I'm not stopping you from saying something you want to say. It is the other way around.

I genuinely am not sure how to respond to all... *waves vaguely* all of that. I've written out several responses and none seemed adequate. I guess what I will try to say in simple terms is that human bodies are inextricably linked with a human person. You cannot separate the two. Every body belongs to a person. When you objectify the body--which you both are quite literally doing by describing women's bodies in terms of objects--you are objectifying the person. You are denying that there is a person inhabiting that body. And I don't give a shit if a dead guy two thousand years ago disagrees.

I am not describing women's bodies. I'm describing a pattern of male desire that does not exist in nature. Women were tortured, and some still are, to make them fit this mold. It's like if I were to describe foot-binding as handicapping women.

[malloc]

I genuinely am not sure how to respond to all... *waves vaguely* all of that. I've written out several responses and none seemed adequate. I guess what I will try to say in simple terms is that human bodies are inextricably linked with a human person. You cannot separate the two. Every body belongs to a person. When you objectify the body--which you both are quite literally doing by describing women's bodies in terms of objects--you are objectifying the person. You are denying that there is a person inhabiting that body. And I don't give a shit if a dead guy two thousand years ago disagrees.

Fair enough. Quite honestly, I have often wondered about the ethics of aesthetically evaluating the bodies of women for precisely that reason. Perhaps it would be better if I were asexual or at least attracted to men instead.

[rotting bones]

Fair enough. Quite honestly, I have often wondered about the ethics of aesthetically evaluating the bodies of women for precisely that reason. Perhaps it would be better if I were asexual or at least attracted to men instead.

That doesn't sound right. I chose the word blob because I noticed noticed that women's abstract self-representations of themselves tend to be distinctly un-"curvy" like the icon on this channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOGeU- ... Djhm9Zs_wg I didn't mean to insult anyone.

[Linguoboy]

Quite honestly, I have often wondered about the ethics of aesthetically evaluating the bodies of women for precisely that reason. Perhaps it would be better if I were asexual or at least attracted to men instead.

Objectifying men's bodies isn't necessarily any better (and that's without even getting into the nonbinary nature of human gender).

Attraction for some people is chiefly or solely physical. That's neither good nor bad; it's just seems to be how some brains are wired. It's when it comes to discussing that attraction--particularly in a semipublic forum with a diverse membership--that there needs to be some additional thought put into how to do it without treating the personhood of the objects of one's desire as inconsequential or nonexistent.

[rotting bones]

Objectifying men's bodies isn't necessarily any better (and that's without even getting into the nonbinary nature of human gender).

Attraction for some people is chiefly or solely physical. That's neither good nor bad; it's just seems to be how some brains are wired. It's when it comes to discussing that attraction--particularly in a semipublic forum with a diverse membership--that there needs to be some additional thought put into how to do it without treating the personhood of the objects of one's desire as inconsequential or nonexistent.

I'm willing to not objectify people who don't want to be objectified, but in my experience, emancipation is still impossible without objectification.

[KathTheDragon]

And you can do that without reducing us to just our bodies, thanks.

I'm not sure how you imagine that would work.

Simple: self-moderation. I've changed a lot of habits (e.g. using the correct pronouns for someone who's decided the old ones were wrong) not by critically evaluating why I might want to keep using the old ones, but by correcting myself whenever I do. Likewise, if you want to stop obsessing over women's bodies, catch yourself doing it and make a goddamn effort to stop.