Straight guy with a serious question here: What do you guys

>>7457913
I just want a dude to cook for and who'll buy me lingerie to fuck me in.

t. mtf

>>7457913

Whilst I do agree that SJWs and the more radical sex-negative feminists are on a slippery slope to puritanism which Im not keen on, they do have a point.

Generally speaking, sexualised women are not 'for the lesbian gaze' 99.9% of the time - it's designed around appealing to men, obviously so. If it appeals to us, it's a 'lucky' side effect, pretty much.
We're a tiny audience and market, so it's not exactly shocking or unfair, much as it's frustrating when all the lesbian porn in the world is aimed at men.

It's not 'outraging' in the slightest. I might not agree with everything they might say on the subject, but im not insulted if they imply everything's for men, since the vast majority of it is aimed at guys, for the benefit of guys, and usually put together by guys as well.

Nobody gives a shit what you think, and if they do, you probably just booty-blasted them.

Professional criticisms of sexual objectification are almost exclusively levied at mass media and advertisement companies due to their ubiquity and the widespread societal effect i.e. constant exposure to the same signs and symbols alluding to women being employed as objects, sexual or otherwise.

It's not wrong that you personally see women as sex objects (whether you do or don't) what's wrong is that we are surrounded by signs that reinforce this perspective. The
>muh lesbians
Argument is stupid, because it assumes that lesbians share the same perspective as hetero men when exposed to images of women i.e. being the observer. Rather, both hetero and homo women tend to view images of women comparatively, seeing the image's subject as some version of themselves. This is why many women dislike the ideal, and purposely sexualized, imagery often found in media; because of the schism it creates between the viewer and sign, and the way it reinforces stereotypes to a point that fosters insecurity and an obsession with appearance in many young women (i.e. children) who are disproportionately influenced by what they observe.

In the 21st century and beyond, it's important to carefully consider the kinds of imagery we surround ourselves and more importantly, our children, with. Not to imply that children are somehow less intelligent or able to discern reality from imagery, but you and I and everyone around us have been and continue to be influenced by imagery in advertisement and media. Moreso now than any time in history, because of the sheer level of exposure we experience browsing the internet/watching TV/driving down the highway/reading magazines/playing video games/etc.

Tl;dr study semiotics

File: feminism.jpg (54KB, 450x511px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 450x511px

>>7457913
feminism is just the ideological form of bitching, arguing with them enables and validates their nonsense

>>7457988
>The
>muh lesbians
>Argument is stupid, because it assumes that lesbians share the same perspective as hetero men when exposed to images of women

Lesbians as a hivemind don't. But Lesbians are not a hivemind, they are made up of different individuals with different tastes and different opinions, and one can not monopolize perspective for the sake of argument if individualism is a thing.
You've lost me here.

But as for the rest, yeah, companies and advertising firms do go a step beyond where the can make people feel shit about themselves.
But isn't learning to stop giving a shit a part of maturing and growing up?

>>7458066
Nice dubs, but your image is a complete fallacy.

The point it misses is that not all men in media look like He-Man. There are average, portly, strong, short, tall, old, young, all variations of men seen in media as leading their own shows/movies/product lines.

However, it's apt that the image uses Barbie, who might as well be the model all fictional female characters are derived from. There's space barbie, secret agent barbie, beach barbie, scientist barbie, mom barbie, the list is endless; and nearly all fictional female characters use Barbie's respective theme costume as a template. All young, beautiful, physically "ideal" women capable of doing any job a man can do, much to the chagrin of men who whine about how "unrealistic" it is when a character like Black Widow (the aforementioned secret agent barbie) can incapacitate a half dozen men barehanded, AND keep her hair looking— funky fresh!

>>7458099
If only everyone was guaranteed to "mature and grow up".

>>7458099
Also not to samefag this thread to death but I had to point this out
>one can not monopolize perspective for the sake of argument if individualism is a thing
You didn't seem to notice yourself doing this in your OP, employing more than one group as a monolith for the "sake of argument"
>spiel that feminists are playing?
>the vast majority of the L and G parts of the LGBT are pretty much primarily defined by the opposite party's sex

When you're discussing a sociological topic, it's beneficial to stick with statistically relevant variables. I'm not decrying your use of generalization, just pointing out the hypocrisy. Nor do I wish to imply that any group of people all think alike, however, advertising and mass media DO work on a consistently large scale, and effectively manipulate large groups of people. This is why there is a billion dollar industry in advertising alone. They understand semiotics, and exploit it for corporate profit.

>>7458170
I didn't specify sex-negative feminists yes, partially because sex-positive ones don't care to regulate them and tend to pull No True Sctotsmans to clean their hands from having to get those people's clerical God complex together;

but i think i did add the "correct me if i'm wrong" in regards to lesbians and gays.
Wouldn't you say that the existence of bisexuals pretty much solidifies the definitions of gay and lesbian as precisely people whose attraction is each primarily defined by the general physical appearance of the preferred partner (sex; superficial nature), followed secondarily by everything else? Only bisexuals are truly "open-minded".

However i have to ask in regards to the advertising thing, are you not forgetting anti-advertising?
Is this not a significant hole in relating the psychology of advertising and behavioral slippery slopes such as projecting fantasies or entertainment into real life interaction?
In the end, it depends on the individual whether they are going to be affected or not, or how they are going to be affected, and that's a "fate" so to speak that is up to the individual themselves to solve. And whatever choice an individual makes, that choice is what defines them as an individual, it is what defines their identity, their humanity.

Advertising is always going to exist in many forms, profit, religious, ideological, even feminism itself belongs to that advertising we dislike so much yet whose existence we must accept as a necessary evil.
As far as i can see, advertising can only change form, and change excuses to justify self-righteousness, but it's all the same shit in the end.

HIDE HETERO THREADS
IGNORE HETERO POSTS
DO NOT REPLY TO HETERO POSTERS