Women are sex objects.

[Sage]

Men look at women like sex objects because they are sex objects. Men are sex objects too. If we did not look at one another this way, we would go extinct.

Discuss.
I fucking love controversial titles. This should be good.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Manipulation at its finest. if you're good looking and you can work it then good for you. if you can't then meh your problem. sex objects does indeed work both ways but narrow minded views leads to women being seen as solely sex objects

[Rutherford The Brave]

If I want to fuck, I always want to fuck women. I'm straight, so naturally the women's vagina because the object I want. It must be vice versa if your horny.

[nick]

Well I dont entirely disagree with the logic of what you have said, but at the same time it seems to reduce them to the same level as a blow-up doll or a fleshlight. Certainly if you are a straight or bi male then an attractive woman may be sexually attractive, but there is a lot more to her than that, and the proposition of getting your end away with her is hardly enough to build a relationship. So whilst the animal instinct is to fuck and move on, the more human instinct is to look for love.

[Sage]

So whilst the animal instinct is to fuck and move on, the more human instinct is to look for love.

If that were an instinct we'd all feel it. If I may speak for myself, I personally feel no urge to pursue "love", and nor do many people I know. I would happily have sex with a girl I hardly know and move on.

[nick]

If that were an instinct we'd all feel it. If I may speak for myself, I personally feel no urge to pursue "love", and nor do many people I know. I would happily have sex with a girl I hardly know and move on.
Fair enough, and I'm not criticising that, some people would know that would be hypocritical because I've done it myself. But at the same time, for me and for many others, that gives a few minutes satisfaction but no lasting pleasure, still leaves a need for something more. So we're all different right, some people just want a quick fuck, some of us want love.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Love such a fickle over felt over used emotion imo. relationships demand a person to love only 1 person which is in my mind as ludicrous as the concept of love itself.

[Amnesiac]

Men look at women like sex objects because they are sex objects. Men are sex objects too. If we did not look at one another this way, we would go extinct.

Discuss.
I fucking love controversial titles. This should be good.

True, and people don't like to admit it. Our sex drive is natural and keeps the species alive. Technically, each gender sees the other as a sex object (unless you're gay).

However, thinking of women solely in a sexual way shouldn't be accepted, because that's not the only thing they do. I mean, I don't care if you watch porn, but if you treat all women like they should all be prostitutes or porn stars, you have a problem :P

[Perseus]

Well I dont entirely disagree with the logic of what you have said, but at the same time it seems to reduce them to the same level as a blow-up doll or a fleshlight. Certainly if you are a straight or bi male then an attractive woman may be sexually attractive, but there is a lot more to her than that, and the proposition of getting your end away with her is hardly enough to build a relationship. So whilst the animal instinct is to fuck and move on, the more human instinct is to look for love.

Contrary to popular belief, we are a polygamous species. That's why men cheat. All we care about is spreading our seed. Love is important, don't get me wrong, but humans care more about sex.

[CuriousDestruction]

i have no doubt people are sex objects because without sex we could never reproduce. however i have 3 problems with it.
1, women and men are too often seen as only sex objects and are therefore manipulated and used for sex and then thrown away. this can lead to lots of violence, drug abuse and a plethora of other problems (i love that word!).
2nd, to piggy back on the first, if we only see each other as sex objects then we lose out on one of the most powerful forces in the entire world. love. love between 2 people will be lost if we are simply sex objects to one another. now some may not find that love. some may not want that love. some may not believe in love. i do. so i refuse to see all people as sex objects.
3rd, if we see each other as sex objects it starts to be about biggest breasts and tightest ass. there's no spiritual or emotional connection. and that can be more valuable than sex in some instances.

[Sage]

there's no spiritual or emotional connection.

There's no such thing as spiritual, but I digress, that's a completely different issue. And to be fair, it's good to have experiences that lack emotional connection- If you do not care much about the other person, you can more freely explore your inhibitions and sexual fantasies, getting better at the act, and being amazing at it when you finally do find somebody you are emotionally attached to.

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

Contrary to popular belief, we are a polygamous species. That's why men cheat. All we care about is spreading our seed. Love is important, don't get me wrong, but humans care more about sex.
I disagree, if all we cared about was passing on our genes, why would gay people even exist? Honestly I think homosexuality is proof, somewhat anyways, that humans (well, on the whole) care more about emotional relationships than sexual ones.

And I think that no one should be viewed solely as a sex object, that's horrible.

[Sage]

I disagree, if all we cared about was passing on our genes, why would gay people even exist?

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality exists in populations so that not all members of a society reproduce. Those who do not reproduce new children are able to look after those whose parents are unavailable or unfit.

[The Dark Lord]

Contrary to popular belief, we are a polygamous species. That's why men cheat. All we care about is spreading our seed. Love is important, don't get me wrong, but humans care more about sex.

btw women cheat as well. People ultimately want pleasure and aren't too bothered where they get it

[Perseus]

I disagree, if all we cared about was passing on our genes, why would gay people even exist? Honestly I think homosexuality is proof, somewhat anyways, that humans (well, on the whole) care more about emotional relationships than sexual ones.

And I think that no one should be viewed solely as a sex object, that's horrible.
It's deviation. There's a mutation in your DNA.
btw women cheat as well. People ultimately want pleasure and aren't too bothered where they get it

Well, yeah.

[Sapphire]

I disagree with the assertion that we are all sex objects. We may all be viewed/treated at times like sex objects but humans fulfill and seek so much more than just sex. Love, friendship, security, family etc.

And I think that no one should be viewed solely as a sex object, that's horrible.QFT.

It's deviation. There's a mutation in your DNA.Care to back that up with evidence?
If not then your point is completely moot.

[Magus]

the more human instinct is to look for love.

There is no such thing as love. Love was made to have nothing but sex. I am not talking parental or heavenly love. I am talking about the love between a couple.

Yes, we have emotions, and these emotions are also driven by animalistic instincts. Love is one of them. Neurochemicals and hormones what brings up these emotions. Love is just the harbinger of sex.

Women as sex objects? When we have licensed brothels, I think they are. :yawn:

Other than that, I think of them as the other face of the coin.

[Perseus]

Care to back that up with evidence?
If not then your point is completely moot.

If you're looking for some sort of article or something, you are out of luck. 1.) I'm not going to scrutinize the internet for it, and 2.) Gay men have more estrogen than testosterone. I think that would involve DNA, but y'know, I could be wrong.

[MadManWithaBox]

Wish I had a woman to be a sex object for me.

[Sapphire]

If you're looking for some sort of article or something, you are out of luck. 1.) I'm not going to scrutinize the internet for it, and 2.) Gay men have more estrogen than testosterone. I think that would involve DNA, but y'know, I could be wrong.
1) If you are not prepared to back up your wild and sweeping claims, why are you posting in a debate forum? :P

2) First of all, if a study has found gay men to have higher levels of eostrogen then it is simply a correlation and you cannot draw a causal relationship from it. Also, hormone levels are influenced by so much more than simply the coding in DNA. Diet is one such thing that can increase/decrease hormone levels.

But, I digress.
Sex is not the center of our being or of our relationships with others. We do not look at or treat everyone as sex objects and that clearly shows that we are not all sex objects all of the time.

[huginnmuninn]

people may not only be sex objects but that is a main factor of what we are

[MacMilker]

Eh, I think it's fair to say I think human beings weren't created solely for the purpose of reproduction

[The Batman]

Eh, I think it's fair to say I think human beings weren't created solely for the purpose of reproduction

Not really if that were true we wouldn't be where we are today. I think that we have evolved past the point where all we do is look at each other as sex objects. We see more than just what we offer in bed and look at other characteristics of the person. If we were solely sex objects than the really unattractive people wouldn't find someone.

[Sage]

Eh, I think it's fair to say I think human beings weren't created solely for the purpose of reproduction

We weren't "created" for anything. But again, I'll digress, that's a different debate altogether.

[Perseus]

1) If you are not prepared to back up your wild and sweeping claims, why are you posting in a debate forum? :P This isn't some hardcore debate that I feel like I have to win and must prove all of my statements with scientific articles. Forgive me for I have sinned.

2) First of all, if a study has found gay men to have higher levels of eostrogen then it is simply a correlation and you cannot draw a causal relationship from it. Also, hormone levels are influenced by so much more than simply the coding in DNA. Diet is one such thing that can increase/decrease hormone levels.


I agree with you, but it makes sense that DNA would be involved with it. It seems like homosexuality would be a mutation because it's different than what is normal.

[Sapphire]

people may not only be sex objects but that is a main factor of what we areIt seems to me as if the terms "sex object" and "sexual being" are being confused throughout this thread.

We are all sexual beings but we are not all sex objects.
Why?
Because we are not completely or mainly concerned with which fellow human would provide us with the best offspring or sexual experience. We are concerned with so much more than that like social standing, careers, families, friendship, adventures, companionship, charity/voluntary work and so on.

If we are mainly concerned with viewing and treating each other like sex objects then we would be pursuing every attractive person we encounter all the time and wouldn't worry about being faithful to any one single person or about our other concerns.

This isn't some hardcore debate that I feel like I have to win and must prove all of my statements with scientific articles. Forgive me for I have sinned.I'm not suggesting you should have a store of articles for every statement you make but when it is as idiotic as that one was and in a debate forum...

I agree with you, but it makes sense that DNA would be involved with it. It seems like homosexuality would be a mutation because it's different than what is normal.You can't say that something seems like a mutation when you have no idea about the intricacies involved in the topic you are talking about. But I don't want to go too off-topic with this so we should probably drop this now.