Hypocrisy... again.

Women's bodies are works of art.
Men's bodies are utilitarian.
Big difference.
There will be no true human progress if we can't even free the female nipple.

What's the difference between a nipple on a man's body and a woman's body? Other than subsurface anatomy? Never mind that what you said really objectifies people.

I didn't objectify, or degrade anyone, I said women's bodies are a work of art, designed to please the eye and attract men in order to procreate.
Men's bodies are practical and pragmatic. They just are.
That's nature. That's who we are.

Historically we evaluate and appreciate men mostly for their mind, skills and financial success…and women mostly for their physical appearance, ability to be desirable and decorative, and having either a seduction or motherhood aura about them in any social situations. In the 20th and 21st century, we've tried to break those historical norms, to mixed results.

To call a woman's body a work of art is the literal definition of body objectification. You are describing her as an object instead of the woman. Avoid using nouns, that's a good starting point.

Objectify means 'to degrade'
Calling the human body a work of art is not degrading.
You're associating what I said with how women are portrayed in movies and music videos.

Objectification (n) -
the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.

A work of art is an object. Regardless of how positive you make the object, it's still objectification. I've said my piece, your misogyny is not my problem.

Works of art are not always objects.
Thanks for disagreeing with me that the female form is not beautiful or attractive.
You had no problem with me calling the male form utilitarian.
and again, you confuse what I said with "Male Gaze" which is used in movies, ads, music videos, etc...

"Thanks for disagreeing with me that the female form is not beautiful or attractive."
>> I was staying on topic.

"You had no problem with me calling the male form utilitarian."
>>I'm not a tool for convenience.

There's your reply on the matter.

Now, on to the rest of your response...

I was about to post a meme about how awesome this discussion was going; on how we can agree to disagree with civility. But then you went ahead and put words in my mouth. Women can be beautiful and attractive. Women are so much more than their form and I find judging them by their form alone is where the objectification starts that seems to escape you.

Were I to use your "What you didn't say" method of rhetoric, I would say "Thanks for making your point about how the mind/personality of a woman is not a factor in the equation of what makes a woman beautiful for you."

Yes, I did say my piece, and then you tried to change it.

Shame on you.

Hey, the original meme posted was about body types and the showing of skin.
I mentioned that men's bodies aren't designed to be ogled at (if that's your thing, though, by all means)
and that women's bodies are. It's all about procreation, that is the reason we are all here, to procreate and keep life going.

It had nothing to do with their brain, their personality, their intelligence, their wit.
If anything, you put words in my mouth, which is why I defended my position and explained that you were mixing up what I said with how women are portrayed in movies, ads, etc... as sexual objects, called "Male Gaze".

GD. You say you weren't engaging in the 'male gaze' but you have a perfect example of it.

Quote: men's bodies aren't designed to be ogled at .... and that women's bodies are. It's all about procreation

You say women are designed to be pleasing to men. But men aren't designed to be pleasing to women.

And they're only good for making babies.

Women only have 2 values in this worldview: how attractive they are to men, and having babies.

Classic male gaze.

Except, I didn't put words into your mouth. I said, if I was going to use your rhetoric, this is what I would say. But I demonstrated why I wouldn't say it and why you were wrong to do so by putting words into my mouth. This is why I put quotes around what I said.

We are more than our instincts/biological functions. We are thinking prime-ape mammals with (most of the time) empathy, and the capacity for higher thought. We can look at the human body for more than just its physical appearance.

If I am to understand you correctly, women are not permitted to "oogle" at men. Even though they most certainly do. If what I am hearing from you is correct to your personal truth, the position you take is based purely on your first-person perspective. While holding this perspective, you're trying to apply such truths as objective facts. The problem though is that truths are subjective, and facts are objective. You can't marry them in the way that you're trying to do.

By saying that women are a work of art, you're applying to them a form that becomes subjective to the viewer. Maybe someone might not like the same things you like in a woman. Maybe someone likes the "male form" more if they followed your line of thinking.

To your last comment, this isn't all about procreation. Some people don't want kids. You have a very strange and, in my opinion, archaic view of the human race. I would even go as far as to say, it sounds like you view women as nothing more than breeding stock and they need to have certain physical qualities. You don't come out and say it, but that "It's all about procreation" comment calls back to "who is fit for breeding?"

And you extend this question only to women and prohibit the question from women to men. Never mind the fact that the human race isn't concerned about its survival anymore as a species. We're more in danger of WMD, gun violence, and religious fanaticism taking out the human race rather than dying out because we don't breed enough. Since that "responsibility" is no longer called for, we don't need to look at women as such objects.

Yes, the degradation is the act of minimizing her to something other than herself; an inanimate object.

Again, you're confusing what I said with "male gaze", which is used in media, movies, ads, music videos, etc... reducing the female form to a sex doll.