Join the Conversation


  1. “They suggest further research would be valuable to discover why some women are prone to self-objectification, while others seem protected against it. Gay and Castano’s data suggest about 20 percent of women have a strong propensity toward self-objectification and are thus particularly susceptible to triggers, such as being stared at.”
    For research, visit all churches in which women are required to be passive submitters. In Sartrian terms, this turns women into the non-subject, or, the object. Men automatically become the subjects, with God over everyone as the ultimate subject (I don’t mean “subject” as in citizens under a King, I mean “subject” like the subject of a sentence: the one who performs the action.
    So, to sum up:
    Men (subject) perform actions (verb) toward/over/for/etc. Women (objects).
    When you grow up this way, when this is embedded in your psyche from birth, of course you are comfortable in the role of being sexually objectified. When years and years of your life are lost to the training, thinking, action-taking, leading that you COULD have done, of course you lose some of the cognitive abilities you may have been blessed with at birth.
    Luckily, women like this can work extra hard as adults to gain their brains back.

    1. You are comfortable in this role until you form your precious mouth around the words “Fuck off.” There. I said it. I stand by it. And I once wrote an essay about this, and read it at a seminary. They did not kick me out.

        1. If I could find it. It may have been lost to the ages. That’s convenient for me, because I can go around talking about it as if it Meant Something. Lemme look later today and see if I can find it.

          1. It’s in your storage locker, under the chair cushion that is now on the floor in a puddle of water.
            Don’t you just love moving?

    1. They don’t do much in the way of distance-learning, and I was a bit of a pill about the essay. We were supposed to do one art project for the end of a class that was called — I think — Art and the Holy. It sounds like a pipe course, but it wasn’t. I mean, the coursework wasn’t bad — we mostly read and wrote papers — but it forced me, at least, to think far more deeply than I had, ever.

  2. I was all ready to post an ALTERNET ALERT!…but I thought it best to, at least, look at the front page first.
    And there I see posted Christopher Malone’s excellent analysis of Tea Party populism from In These Times. (William Graham Sumner….how long has it been since you heard that name?)
    So I’ll pipe down….this time….

    Voodoo Science? Non sequitor reasoning? Circular logic?
    Possibly…..but it still makes one think.
    But so does this:
    How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    1. O.K. Every time I post something from FraidyNet, I know I’m going to hear from the likes of Bro. Leftover. Does that scare me? Not one bit. Do I think twice about it? Well, yeah. But then I post it, anyway. Nyah.

      How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

      That’s not funny, asshole!

      I think I just reached my quota of naughty words on this blog, but just for the morning hours.

      1. I better start being nicer to Alternet. Maybe I’ll get my profile back.

        And the language…well…thanks for that. I learned a new word reading about Droopy the other day….lickspittle. Has a kind of Connecticut ring to it, wouldn’t you say?

        How many assholes does it take to change a lightbulb?
        Wait ’till they’re finished… and then count.

        1. Hey! I see that Droopy is backing getting rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell! Wonder what’s in it for him?

        2. Excellent.

          How many college football players does it take to change a lightbulb?

          The whole team, and they get full semester credit for it.

  3. I guess this explains why I usually do well in school. I can only recall one time I was the object of oogling. (As opposed to googling.) I was somewhere I shouldn’t have been with someone I shouldn’t have been with, and some stranger complimented me on my legs. (This was way back when I still wore skirts and dresses.) I was mortified, and I could think about nothing else for weeks. But I admit I did have nice legs.

      1. Only wore it that one time. Best Costume Ever. It looks like something out of the Jetsons, doesn’t it? We did keep it, but my younger sister says she wore it out playing dress-up with it.

      2. If indeed Sharon could still wear that outfit, it would be cause for extreme ogling.

  4. In the photo, the commander is barking “Eyes Left!” and the soldiers are simply complying with an officer’s order.

    The commander is not in the picture, though.

    1. I don’t kno…that one in the middle looks like he’s ready for a complete “about face”.

      I think they’re all clarinet players with the Salvation Army…the men…not the women.

        1. Welllll……………
          They don’t exactly look like your standard tambourine troupe…..but hey… could happen.

  5. I’ve been getting deeply involved in reading about the QUiverful movement and if that doesn’t make women both stupid and self hating I do not know what does. A young lady who shows some knee may “defraud” a young man (meaning give him a boner I guess) – that along with the total submission to your husband….I don’t know how any young women ever leave.

    1. I am next on the Holds List at the library for the book “Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.” Let’s have a long[winded] discussion about it when I’m through.

      I was told by my high school boyfriend, who was planning to be a Christian missionary, that it was my fault when he couldn’t control himself sexually because I had worn my skirt too short. He was a believer in women being full of wicked wiles, which they inherited from Eve.

      1. So, Sensible, that’s why he’s not your boyfriend any more.

        Wonder if he married and if he’s still married.

        1. Oooh, me, too! I read it when it came out. It’s quite good and quite well-researched.

  6. I have some news for some of you ladies, Woman are sex objects to Men, just as we are sex object to Woman. We are also much more that that as well.
    We are all “victims” of our hormones.
    How we act upon these urges is what defines us.
    Me, I like wearing sunglasses at the beach, “the kind that you can see out but ain’t nobody can see in.”
    And I am sorry…NOT!

    1. There’s a difference between finding someone sexually attractive and making someone a sex object.

  7. In 1858, the eminent Oliver Wendell Holmes defended ogling as “an appreciating homage of the eyes” – and refers to women who object to it as “very ill-bred” and “snapping-turtles”. An accompanying illustration, reminiscent of the photo at the top of this page, can be found a few pages past the front cover (before the numbered pages). Boy, some things just never change!

    1. Too late, Neu! We all saw your Ash Wednesday photo.

      You’re a head-turner, for sure.

    1. I think it’s the degree to which the tongue is hanging out, and the sound-level of the oinking.

    2. Class? Here’s my definition — you can appreciative glance (maybe we all do that) but you can’t drool. Or say anything. Or have absolutely any movement around the eyebrow portion of your body.

  8. Which just brings to mind: One of the men I used to work with is very attractive. I ran into him and his family at an event and we were chatting. Another friend came around the corner, her jaw truly dropped, and she clearly stared at him (when I tease her about this she says she was NOT drooling). His wife, who’s used to this kind of reaction to his appeal, was slightly disconcerted (but not threatened).

    My point being: my friend WAS appreciatively staring but she had no ulterior motive, she did not behave in any inappropriate way, she did not embarrass or harass the guy — she was just stricken by seeing someone whom she saw as attractive. She recovered and went on her way.

    If she had said something inappropriate, if she had obviously undressed him with her eyes, if she had insulted him because he didn’t respond to her the way she thought he should, it would have been a different kind of story.

    1. Well, good. I’m pretty sure I am not guilty of lowering the IQ of anyone, then.

      I’d really hate thinking I did anything to make the world a stupider place, on any given day.

    2. Or started to dry-hump his leg. That would be wrong, too.

      Just lil’ ol’ me, bringing the conversation back to the gutter.

      1. “Just lil’ ol’ me, bringing the conversation back to the gutter.”

        Keeps the world in balance. Thanks.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: