Did you mean to reply to someone else's statement? I'm not sure what you aren't agreeing with... It sounds like you and I are on the same page.

Can't agree. Men have a natural tendency to look at women sexually, its biological (women (and business) certainly take advantage of this). Granted, different aspects of a woman appeal to different men - eyes, hair, hips, attitude, etc but the reality if biology triggers the attraction (likely for reproductive reasons). Proof: Pheramones.

Thanks Blarman and back at you. As you know it is not always smooth sailing. I say if you build a strong foundation you can handle the quakes whatever the magnitude. Metaphorically speaking.
For both of us our only marriage , we started at 22
for me and 21for her.

I don't see women as sex objects; rather. I see them as subjects - subjects of my attention, interest and time. Sexual attributes included, as well as all other attributes that a person has. Exactly the same process that goes through a woman's head when she sees a man (and recently several other permutations, as well). Sexuality is part of our existence; there is nothing wrong or negative about it. A man paying attention to sexual aspects of a woman in no way means that he hates her - in, fact the opposite is true. The same applies to women - what perverted (not sexually, but psychologically perverted) mind ever come up with an idea that when one sees something they like in an opposite sex, that it somehow equates to hate? Really, they need to curl back into a fetal position and suck Enfomil at their favorite college safe-space.

Congratulations for having a great marriage. I feel much the same way about mine, but I've still got a bit to go to catch up to you!

Female sexual objectification by a male involves a woman being viewed primarily as an object of male sexual desire, rather than as a whole person.[1][2][3] Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists[4] see objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media, women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art, stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces and events, such as beauty contests, and the presumed need for cosmetic surgery, particularly breast enlargement and labiaplasty.[5] Objectification in the media can range from subtle forms, such as the lack of main female characters, to very explicit forms such as highly sexualized dialogue and provocatively dressed female characters.
From Wikipedia

I can only say that sexual chemistry is real . For both men and women ,heterosexual or homosexual. People have different tastes or different strokes for different folks. When Hollywood producers cast for movies they try to hire the most attractive people for many roles , not all but most. Because they are creating a voyeristic fantasy , a distraction and entertainment for the viewers. When fantasy collides with reality it is usually a disaster. See altruism.

Personally after 37 years of marriage to a smart, hard working , talented ,kind ,loving ,amazing , sexy, beautiful ,attractive women , I cannot and do not perform sexually with her if she is not into it. Luckily for me it is rare that she is not. The mystery in our relationship to me is that she finds me handsome. Note in her description I didn't say good eyesight.

Without being the leading anthropologist in the Gulch, based on a number of books I read many years ago, (The Naked Ape, etc,) Nature designed males to be visually attracted to females in order to spur on reproduction thus promoting survival of the species. It starts at puberty and goes on with most males to well past female menopause which gets some of us older guys in the "you ought to be ashamed of yourself" category. I think that it is admirable that most men control their primal urges. If they didn't, women would be not much better than blow-up dolls in the way they were treated.
Do men ever outgrow objectifying women? Some do. Some don't. At a certain point with most males, capability surrenders to chronic aging and new hobbies are often espoused.

WoW! Where do you get this stuff?? Some one lied to you; no better statement, some one con'd you.

While you get partial credit for stating 'women' on a pedestal are not equal to you, you fail at saying she is unequal to you. She is on the pedestal because you hold her to more value then you; an example you may better understand: the man you chose to date, you chose because you felt he had more value then the others [in your eye's], you pursued him because of the 'value' you saw in him..hence you pursued him because you us him as a value to you.

As to your: "Roman culture informing [I believe you meant forming] and defined Roman Catholicism.", again you failed at the truth. You see Mike, Romans were pagans and above all but, perhaps the Greeks help the human form as idolized and as an object of pleasure having built many 'bath houses' aka orgy rooms to indulge in this worship. Now, just because Christianity was on the rise after the history of Jesus Christ's life, death and rebirth was spreading does not mean Christians were defined by Roman's..quite the opposite in fact, Romans started to turn from the pagan orgies and when Rome actually burned the Christians were falsely blamed.

Now the again partial credit comes more from the fact that 'Catholics' founded in Roman to gain followers took many pagan holidays and melded them into their 'Christian' beliefs such as the December Birth of Jesus which aligned with the pagan solstice. The Roman Christians did much to harm the honesty of Christianity, something that still hurts modern Christianity to this day..but, roman culture was the main forming of the Catholic sect of Christianity.

Please, for your own good...do better research, one should never eisegete; one should always exegete when studying

Lol.

I Agree..Men view women as sex objects as well women view men as sex objects...PSST...its in our DNA; you see if men and women didn't view each other in this way the human race would have quickly died off.

Now, I do understand that the 'Darwinian' groups formed in the late 19th Century through today have worked hard at trying to make this dying off happen still, but at a much slower rate. Margaret Sanger aimed at 'colored folk' by physically removing their babies from the womb [abortion], others at those 'different' among us; first those that were not deemed normal, then those claimed as sick by cutting out their reproductive organs [sterilization] and now in a much more 'sneaky' fashion using pills and devices to stop or end pregnancy within 24 hours...

Still though the Brain wants what the Brain wants and that is too LIVE... so it does what every living organism does..attracts and get's attracted to the other organism that will help it procreate!

But, how in this PC world does it do this??? It turns on your sexual stimulants when you see an opposite life form; ie: man sees a woman, woman sees a man, both see each other...

its the way of life...live with it!

:-)

Depends on what you mean by "to objectify."

If you mean, do they daydream of intimacy with women, yes.

If you mean, that's all they do in the company of women, that depends on the man.

And then there's Francisco d'Anconia's theory of what a man finds sexually attractive...

Here's a prediction. Even in Galt's Gulch, a post about sex will end up being one of the all time leaders in the comment count. We're off to a good start.

In reality, this extends well beyond the simple issue of sexually objectifying. All human beings judge based on first impressions. It is a natural instinct giving us the ability to decipher reality, protect ourselves, procreate, take advantage of opportunity, avoid conflict, etc. The actions we take in response to those first impression judgements are what makes us rational humans. If we can act civilly in the face of being aroused, nervous, frightened, concerned, excited, or whatever emotion a first impression may make, then we have succeeded in rationality.

Well said indeed. +1

Yes! In the grand scheme of things, that is the way God created mankind..

Yes of course, and women do men. Men are just more open about it.

Everyone forms opinions about others, men or women, based on their looks. The problem is only if these initial impressions can not be displaced by real data and interactions. This initial information is not useless, but it is flawed. It is the same as worrying more about a big black guy in a hoodie an alley, than a slight white woman in a sundress. It is both natural (innate, healthy, viable offspring) and related to experience.
It would be foolish to completely set this aside. On the other hand, it is equally foolish and inappropriate to rely on it when better information is available.

Perfect!

Congratulations!

Yes. I think it's natural.

Object can be used in several ways, but the primary meaning is something other than one's self. If your primary argument is that it fails to recognize the sentience of another human being, I would point out that while all human beings are objects, not all objects are human beings. I think you're stretching things just a bit in your objection. (Side note: "objection" has the word object in it but is solely used with humans...)

"how can anyone be suddenly aroused by the sight of a limb"

It's called being a man. Men are hard-wired to be aroused by sight. In that they differ greatly from women, who have a much more complex arousal mechanism. Go look up any psychological study and they will cite these as rather indisputable conclusions. There may be some outliers who suffer from various psychological issues who do not conform, but these are a tiny minority. Evidence: the porn industry is almost exclusively for male consumers. Lingerie - as cited by the author - is to take advantage of the innate arousal mechanism of men.

I would point out that using a minor tribe in Tibet as an example of general behavior in the rest of the world is not only ridiculous, but fails to acknowledge the very perpetuation mechanism for that very tribe. Again, you're stretching mightily and I'd recommend re-reading point 8 of Prager's observations.

Yes. Check out YAHOO, everyday another story about who wore what and how much they showed. It is in our face everyday. Hell, Playboy showed less in it's early days than what is going on in the movies and concerts.

Methinks too much is made of normal sexuality.
Leftists make the most noise for issues pertaining to it and they ain't into reality in the first damn place.
As for my prehistoric reality, watch how allosaurs learn to respect females. You may want to scroll
this instructional video about halfway to get past the soup and salad and more into the meat and potatoes~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9IjL...

I'll admit that my first notice of a woman is sexual. My wife's hourglass, voluptuous body and dazzling smile made it seem like there were no other women in the room, and made me more determined to get to know her. Discovering she had a brilliant mind, tremendous sense of humor, and incredible artistic talent sealed the deal. She readily admits I caught her attention sexually as well, since I was in pretty good shape back then. We've been married for nearly 40 years, and while both of our bodies are showing the years, there's still an element of sexual attraction to our relationship.

They certainly can.