Will men ever start seeing woman as people first, sex objects last?

[Whiskeytide]

164. I see my wife as many things...

a person
a friend
a mom
a confidant
a lover
a financial whiz
a person who usually kicks my ass in an argument
a comedian
a smart ass
a sounding board
a voice of reason
(and too many more to list)

and, sometimes, a sex object.

But she is my wife. I know her, and I have a history with her that tells me she is all of these things, some more than others at certain times and under varying circumstances, depending on the context and possible influences of many other factors.

That history is the key.

As far as other women - women I don't already know - are concerned (which is what you're talking about in your OP), I think it is exactly the same model. I have little or no history with them other than what I see or observe, and thus that limited history necessarily informs - or at least greatly influences - my thought process.

If I hear a woman singing, I might think she's a good singer.
If I observe a woman making a closing argument, I might think she's a good lawyer.
If I see a woman laughing, I might think she's happy.
If I see a woman diving over spectators at a football game to deliver a hay maker and scissor kicks to an opposing fan, I may think she's a drunken embarrassment to my Alma Mater.

For all of the above examples, those are likely to be my "first" thoughts - because of the "history" I have at hand.

And, for all of the above examples, I could substitute "man" for "woman" (actually "person" for woman) and it wouldn't change a thing about the thought process. Still no difference. Perfectly interchangeable.

But here's where it gets dicey (and where I'm sure I'm going to get in trouble) .... if I see a woman in some kind of sexual context, I'm probably going to form a sexual thought about her, and its probably going to be my first thought. That is the limited history I have.

Revealing clothing, clothing that exposes or emphasizes parts of a person's body that 52 years of American culture has told me are supposed to be sexually relevant, is often enough to prompt that first "sex object" thought - but ONLY with respect to a woman. That response is NOT gender neutral. If I see a man in revealing clothes, I will likely have a first thought about his physical appearance (he's in shape, he's not in shape, I bet he's a runner, ... etc), but it is not going to be a sexually charged thought. With a woman in that context, it often is.

I don't think I can do much to control that. I can control my response, I can control my actions, I can control my words. But, unfortunately, I can't do a lot to control the thoughts that flash across my mind. Part of it is surely instinctive (that's why its not gender neutral), and part of it is surely cultural - as to the latter, we could outlaw all clothes, religious zealotry, boner pills and hamburger commercials, and this would probably all go away in a couple of generations. Otherwise, I think its here to stay for a while. Especially as long as that first thought matters so much (first impressions and all the psychiatry behind that), and thus keeps feeding the stereotypes and expectations of our sexual culture.

Its kind of sad. But I'm very different at 52 than I was at 22. And DU has certainly revealed to me that I am still very much a neanderthal in many many ways, and it continues to change and enlighten my perspective on the relationship between the genders even more every single day. So maybe there's a glimmer of hope for future generations - if we survive as a species long enough.

Note: Wearing revealing clothing does not make a woman responsible for the thoughts of some man. Or a man in revealing clothes responsible for the thoughts of some woman. Please don't assume I am saying that. She or he can wear what she or he wants. What another person thinks is their own problem.

Note: I'm not advocating or stating with approval that wearing revealing clothing is or should be classified as a "sexual context". It shouldn't be. But it often times is. And that's just a fact.

Note: Props to G. Carlin on the outlawing religion analogy.

Note: I'm as disgusted as everyone else over the Sugar bowl incident, but I really don't want to discuss it except to say we're not all like that. However, Roll Tide anyway. (I am required to say that anytime there is an actual or implied reference to Bama).