LogFAQs > #950335792

StealThisSheen posted...

Terms change and grow over time.

The reason sexual objectification is seen to fall under misogyny is because it literally strips women of their value and worth as a person to instead view them as an object that exists merely to provide sexual gratification.

I get that terms change over time, but they have to make sense and this case I just don't think that's the case. Adding that context to the word is like adding theft to physical assault. They're both bad, but are clearly varying degrees of bad, and you wouldn't say that someone running by you snatching your purse out of your hand and fleeing is assault.

I'm not saying treating women as if they're just a sex object isn't bad, of course it is, but it isn't on the same level as outright hating them at least to me.

TheRock1525 posted...

This is fundamentally not true. The idea that women are just sex objects created for pleasing men is a core tenet of misogyny. That's part of why they view them as inferior.

Why do you think PUA often self-identify as misogynists?

When I say the history of the word, I mean the beginnings of it. I'm not referring to the past 50 years, but where the word actually came from.

I don't intend to nor will ever defend someone who only sees women as sexual objects, but I don't see that as the same as wanting to see sexually pleasing things. As a straight man, I'm not going to say I don't like a nice female butt, however I'm interested in the rest of her as well. Would you call that misogynistic? I wouldn't think so.

---

1st Year OMG Link Always Wins. 2nd Year OMG FF7 Always Wins.
3rd Year OMG Link Always Wins. 2101st Year OMG CATS Always Wins.