Whenever I’m out in public with my friends, if a woman passes by, they always feel compelled to say whether or not “would bang”. They make it out like I’m the weird one for not doing this.
Whenever I’m out in public with my friends, if a woman passes by, they always feel compelled to say whether or not “would bang”. They make it out like I’m the weird one for not doing this.
It’s objectification. You are reducing another human being into an object whose only characteristic is whether or not you’d fuck them.
Commenting on someone’s fashion choices, how they’ve styled their hair, how they’ve chosen to present themselves, etc is normally not objectifying, as those are choices that person made. Saying, “that person is pretty/handsome/beautiful” is closer to objectifying but is more dependent on the rest of the context. But saying “I’d fuck her” is objectification.
This isn’t Puritanism, it’s about seeing other human beings as human beings and not a hole to fuck.
part of being a human being is having a physical body which will have features people like and another part of being a human being is having a libido and being interested in other people. the hard barrier you make going from “that person is pretty” (we can rephrase this to be “that person has overall features I consider attractive and possibly I find myself attracted to them”) and “I’d fuck her” (that person has overall features I consider attractive and I find myself so attracted to them to the point I would have sex with them if given the opportunity) is in fact not a line going from not objectifiying to objectifiying but a natural continuation of the feeling and logic. the only real difference is the level of respect being given since “I’d fuck her” is a much less respectful phrase and the fact sex is being talked about which is why this ties into “puritan culture”