Back to the point that was supposed to be my original and main point (which I diverged from oh so terribly.)
Okay, quick, let's fuck up an already fucked-up "essay."
These stories objectify and sexualize women. We paint our female characters as nothing more than irrational constructs of the libido. It's like they've been possessed by Eros. Not one of any of our characters acts sensibly according to any situation. We give them minds for nothing but sexual gratification, and it reflects on no-one but ourselves and our perverse quest for sexual situations outside the realm of possibility. These woman, who can think of nothing upon finding a man who is rather small relative to her height besides e.g. inserting him into one of her several erogenous orifices, exhibiting her dominance over him one way or another, or whatever it is your mind lusts for, are too nothing more than the surrogates of the sexual desires of you, the audience.
I'm guilty of this perversity too. I totally love these stories. They are erotic for me; it's simple enough. But I recognize the absurdity of it all. Try, for instance, be you a heterosexual male who solely reads F/m stories such as the likes of which exist on this merry site, reversing the genders of the characters. I.e. "She entered the room and saw you sitting there on the couch, and immediately pulled down her underwear and sat on you, squeezing you up her anus" becomes "He entered the room and saw you sitting there on the couch, and immediately pulled down his underwear and sat on you, squeezing you up his anus."
Reflect on those sentences a bit. Certainly, they both strike you as having possible erotic value, although I'm willing to bet that the latter evokes disgust within you. Or it would, anyway, in an actual M/m [/f] story. Try reading some of the homosexual stories we have on here, if you can bare to. It's not the homosexuality, of course, that offends your tastes (I would hope), but the absurd actions taken by the larger male.
This is the reaction of the morally/sexually normal female upon reading these stories. She is flabbergasted, horrified, dumbstruck, and so on and so forth in the face of such repugnant and senseless debauchery. Does this not fit well the very definition of sexual objectification? Here's Wikipedia's definition:
That sounds just about right to me. The women of our stories are just instruments of sex, and have no qualities aside from those that enable them to fulfill this destiny.
The only objection you might make, I would say, is that these women are fictional, and that they therefore don't have any other qualities to ignore. We have moulded them from scratch into sexual objects, whereas sexual objectification implies that they were not always such. "These stories are fantasies," you say, "you pedantic dilettante YellowBlack, and are obviously not based in reality. Or, if they are, they are based in it so frivolously it becomes irrelevant. They cease to be 'real' by their very nature. How can we objectify women who are not real?"
And yet, in reading these stories, in imagining and lusting over objectified women, in thinking this way, does your mind slowly accept such an objectification? Do you eventually, from absorbing so many of these stories, objectify women in real life? Does the line between private, imaginary sexual objects and the obviously different women of reality, who do not even deal with men a small fraction of her size nor are in any way instruments of sexuality just as you are not so, begin to blur, if only in your head?
Hahaha I'm obviously the greatest person in the world!!1!1!1one!1
Okay, quick, let's fuck up an already fucked-up "essay."
These stories objectify and sexualize women. We paint our female characters as nothing more than irrational constructs of the libido. It's like they've been possessed by Eros. Not one of any of our characters acts sensibly according to any situation. We give them minds for nothing but sexual gratification, and it reflects on no-one but ourselves and our perverse quest for sexual situations outside the realm of possibility. These woman, who can think of nothing upon finding a man who is rather small relative to her height besides e.g. inserting him into one of her several erogenous orifices, exhibiting her dominance over him one way or another, or whatever it is your mind lusts for, are too nothing more than the surrogates of the sexual desires of you, the audience.
I'm guilty of this perversity too. I totally love these stories. They are erotic for me; it's simple enough. But I recognize the absurdity of it all. Try, for instance, be you a heterosexual male who solely reads F/m stories such as the likes of which exist on this merry site, reversing the genders of the characters. I.e. "She entered the room and saw you sitting there on the couch, and immediately pulled down her underwear and sat on you, squeezing you up her anus" becomes "He entered the room and saw you sitting there on the couch, and immediately pulled down his underwear and sat on you, squeezing you up his anus."
Reflect on those sentences a bit. Certainly, they both strike you as having possible erotic value, although I'm willing to bet that the latter evokes disgust within you. Or it would, anyway, in an actual M/m [/f] story. Try reading some of the homosexual stories we have on here, if you can bare to. It's not the homosexuality, of course, that offends your tastes (I would hope), but the absurd actions taken by the larger male.
This is the reaction of the morally/sexually normal female upon reading these stories. She is flabbergasted, horrified, dumbstruck, and so on and so forth in the face of such repugnant and senseless debauchery. Does this not fit well the very definition of sexual objectification? Here's Wikipedia's definition:
Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification or who is sexually attractive.
That sounds just about right to me. The women of our stories are just instruments of sex, and have no qualities aside from those that enable them to fulfill this destiny.
The only objection you might make, I would say, is that these women are fictional, and that they therefore don't have any other qualities to ignore. We have moulded them from scratch into sexual objects, whereas sexual objectification implies that they were not always such. "These stories are fantasies," you say, "you pedantic dilettante YellowBlack, and are obviously not based in reality. Or, if they are, they are based in it so frivolously it becomes irrelevant. They cease to be 'real' by their very nature. How can we objectify women who are not real?"
And yet, in reading these stories, in imagining and lusting over objectified women, in thinking this way, does your mind slowly accept such an objectification? Do you eventually, from absorbing so many of these stories, objectify women in real life? Does the line between private, imaginary sexual objects and the obviously different women of reality, who do not even deal with men a small fraction of her size nor are in any way instruments of sexuality just as you are not so, begin to blur, if only in your head?
Hahaha I'm obviously the greatest person in the world!!1!1!1one!1
242 views
·
May 12, 2023
Sign in to comment