I wanted to clarify something about the controversial prior post entitled "A truly offensive post". It isn't that I wanted to defend (Or attack) total objectification. And it isn't that I think the public groping of unknown women should be allowed. And there's an easy line to see being crossed there, it's consent. What I objected to was the idea that enjoying a woman's charms purely on their feminine appeal was somehow patently satanically evil. That "Objectification" is simply wrong on an ethical level in any form, and that as a man if I see a woman and know nothing about her, somehow I'm some kind of low-life jerk because I think she has a nice body, and therefore I might want to meet her. Notice I haven't groped her, not even ogled her, but just thought "DAMN she's good looking, I wonder what she's like?". That simple thought process makes me some kind of monster according to the theories postulated in the original post that I was objecting to. .
Maybe I took it personally. Certainly I have done exactly what was described. In fact, the lady Samantha that I spoke of in an earlier post was exactly that. I saw her in a lifestyle club almost wearing a sexy leather something-made-of-straps-and-nothing-else, and I decided I was going to meet her. I talked with her for about 15 minutes that night and when I left I had decided I was going to do all I could to seduce her. That led to a years-long very affectionate relationship that ended on a friendly note once it had run its course. The relationship is related in more detail in that earlier post, so I don't see the need to detail it again here, but I certainly don't regret it, and I have never had any indication she does. I still hold great affection for her. While I haven't seen her in years, if she ever should show up on my doorstep needing help I would absolutely reach out to her not just as a fellow human being that needed help, but as a woman I still care very much for on an emotional level. And yet, I blatantly decided to meet her based solely on her looks. I simply don't accept the argument made that I did anything wrong there, and I don't see who was harmed or where the evil lies.
I also object for the hypocrisy. These comments came from people whom at other times have sung the praises of exactly and specifically objectification. So apparently that type of thinking is O.K. at least part of the time, but only if the woman wants to play just then. I don't abide anyone that changes the rules as they go.
The irony is, I don't do objectification. No human furniture, no puppy play, pony girls, mummified statues as decoration, nothing even remotely like objectification really interests me. In fact, as you might be able to tell by reading the list I just wrote, I'm not even terribly clear on what qualifies as objectification and what doesn't. Nothing I've ever explored has ever been called any method of objectification. What I do know is that I adore femininity, and I adore seeing a woman when she is wanton, or when she is floating in what is usually called subspace. I presume that by now if I had any interest in something that qualified, someone, somewhere would have pointed out that the activity was considered objectification. I do not understand things like objectification, tears in play, pony and puppy play, and a dozen other things I've seen being done which seem to me to reduce the submissive partner to at best a stupid beast and at worst a mindless thing. I do though, respect others right to play as they wish so long as there is informed consent, so when I see something I don't understand or even plain don't like being consentually engaged in, I don't scream "Monster!" and then make sweeping derogatory generalizations. I just go in the other room.
I must say that I find it just plain disgusting that after having made such sweeping derogatory generalizations, no support to the idea was even offered. You know, STAND for something! Even if it's something I don't agree with or approve of, if you make a reasoned case and show me how all the parts fit, at least I'll understand it. If I can understand it, I can probably at least respect it at some level. If you can't do that, then don't expect me to go along just to be non-confrontational and easy going. Somehow I am offensive when I demand to see the logic, but it is in no way supposed to offend me that I am not allowed to question overly broad generalizations or "Folk wisdom". I don't understand that attitude and I don't respect it. And yet when I challenge it, somehow I am the bad guy, and of course THAT can't be explained either, I am just supposed to accept that I am.
I'm afraid I don't, and won't.
