FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Preference vs Objectification

Jump to newest
 

By *ack688 OP   Man
over a year ago

abruzzo Italy (and UK)

Objectification is defined as when one person treats another like a thing or commodity, ignoring his or her humanity and dignity. Objectifying someone reduces their worth down to their physical appearance.

Everyone has preferences on here, but at what point do you feel it tips the balance and begins to dehumanise the person by not seeing them as a person but merely a set of physical attributes?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

We can't apply HR levels of equality in the workplace, in the bedroom. No-one is obliged to consider every age/sex/ethnicity if they don't want to. But please, keep it to stating what you are looking for, because stating what you are not looking for, especially if done in a way that has undertones of any "ism" simply won't get you anywhere.

It's the Fab version of the scientific principle. You can only prove a positive, never a negative. People who peddle in negatives scientifically speaking (The earth ISN'T round) are the morons. It's the same with with "No whites/fatties/ginger beards" brigade

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Being South Asian this is genuinely something that I really struggle to get my head around.

Anytime someone tells me they find south Asians attractive I always recoil a little wondering if it's almost a fetish in their eyes.

I've been put off a number of meets after hearing something like that or seeing it written on a profile.

It's an obstacle I don't have to consider when I'm dating/meeting within my own race.

Having said that, I don't really have many pics on my profile so I suppose they've got to establish attraction somehow haha.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think this is a very good question and one to which there isn't a simple answer. We have probably all known relationships where one of the partners is more in love with the idea of their relationship than the actual person they're with which is surely the ultimate in objectification.

I think the answer is when you would continue to fancy a person even if they were to loose the physical attribute(s) that you fancy about them.

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atnip make me purrWoman
over a year ago

Reading


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

We can't apply HR levels of equality in the workplace, in the bedroom. No-one is obliged to consider every age/sex/ethnicity if they don't want to. But please, keep it to stating what you are looking for, because stating what you are not looking for, especially if done in a way that has undertones of any "ism" simply won't get you anywhere.

It's the Fab version of the scientific principle. You can only prove a positive, never a negative. People who peddle in negatives scientifically speaking (The earth ISN'T round) are the morons. It's the same with with "No whites/fatties/ginger beards" brigade"

I agree that you can state a preference in a kind way but even stating it kindly can still objectify the person. I hate the whole BBC crap as it can then reduce a person to a single physical attribute. I would hate tu be seen as only a pair of big boobs and some guys can come across as totally tit blind.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

We can't apply HR levels of equality in the workplace, in the bedroom. No-one is obliged to consider every age/sex/ethnicity if they don't want to. But please, keep it to stating what you are looking for, because stating what you are not looking for, especially if done in a way that has undertones of any "ism" simply won't get you anywhere.

It's the Fab version of the scientific principle. You can only prove a positive, never a negative. People who peddle in negatives scientifically speaking (The earth ISN'T round) are the morons. It's the same with with "No whites/fatties/ginger beards" brigade"

I dunno, the earth ISN'T flat. And I can prove it

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it's 90% of the time a meat market. If they like the pic/ stated attributes, they are attracted.

Profile text is sometimes read however.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I think the answer is when you would continue to fancy a person even if they were to loose the physical attribute(s) that you fancy about them.

Mr "

That's a good point Mr !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

We can't apply HR levels of equality in the workplace, in the bedroom. No-one is obliged to consider every age/sex/ethnicity if they don't want to. But please, keep it to stating what you are looking for, because stating what you are not looking for, especially if done in a way that has undertones of any "ism" simply won't get you anywhere.

It's the Fab version of the scientific principle. You can only prove a positive, never a negative. People who peddle in negatives scientifically speaking (The earth ISN'T round) are the morons. It's the same with with "No whites/fatties/ginger beards" brigade"

Agree.

But I do like to see "NO XYZ!!!!!" angry text on a profile because I don't want to waste any time chatting to someone who would state that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rincess peachWoman
over a year ago

shits creek

I think for me the answer lies in do you see them as a person first and those attributes second.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the line crosses when someone stops seeing the person their favoured attribute is attached to, and only see the attribute. Whether that’s cock/pussy type, boob size, dress size, colour/ethnicity, age, etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes I hear you there. The whole BBC culture's a perfect example of the sort of blind fetishizing that makes me uncomfortable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think for me the answer lies in do you see them as a person first and those attributes second.

"

This depends on what you are looking for, an FWB relationship is very different from an actual co-habiting one. And if you want a stunner who you can put up with being dumb, then well, crack on so long as the other half is happy that you're potentially a Neanderthal with a nice dick. Objectification can be fine if done in a kind way and a way that is understood and reciprocated. And on a site that is 50% physical relationships, I totally get it.

Having said that, I am a straight white professional male, I live life on the easiest difficulty setting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ecadent_DevonMan
over a year ago

Okehampton

I am tit blind to be honest.

My preference is for relaxed non-drama llamas which is not a physical attribute. However I prefer older women, objectifying? Not really, I have found that this characteristic tends to align me with my preference.

So I think that are initial preferences (usually for a “type” of person) can lead to objectification albeit subliminally.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Following. This is genuinely interesting thread.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If 2 people (or more if a group meet) understand, appreciate and agree to the fact that they are all just attracted to the physical attributes then I don't see that as dehumanising them.

Then it's a literal meat-fest of pure fucking but it's ok because they are all having fun.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes I hear you there. The whole BBC culture's a perfect example of the sort of blind fetishizing that makes me uncomfortable."

Once you start defining your preference to 1 particular body part, yeah, too much for me and I can't see how you can get pleasure from being lustful after such a small proportion of an actual person. There was a thread today in the lounge (and go you if you took part, this isn't to denigrate that OP or anyone who replied) called "Biggest Cocks Biggest Tits" and that's the sort of thing I just shake my head in wonderment at, that there are people for whom such grading is part of their attraction profile. The sort of guy for whom breast size might as well be measured in units of weight. Now that's one of my 'preferences', smaller breasts, but I've also always said shape over size which allows be to count of some that are smaller, and also in some that are larger but are a lovely shape. But to only care about the volume dumfounds me. Yet people do it every day.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *agan_PairCouple
over a year ago

portchester


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

"

The problem with these sorts of positive preference statements is they do not state you do not want to be contacted by men who are not gym fit, but that gym fit women are something you like.

“I don’t meet overweight men” leaves no room for misunderstanding

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

We can't apply HR levels of equality in the workplace, in the bedroom. No-one is obliged to consider every age/sex/ethnicity if they don't want to. But please, keep it to stating what you are looking for, because stating what you are not looking for, especially if done in a way that has undertones of any "ism" simply won't get you anywhere.

It's the Fab version of the scientific principle. You can only prove a positive, never a negative. People who peddle in negatives scientifically speaking (The earth ISN'T round) are the morons. It's the same with with "No whites/fatties/ginger beards" brigade"

I believe that was my quote, and I’m glad it’s found it way here

There’s nice ways and mean ways to ask for what you want. A little compassion and politeness goes a long way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

The problem with these sorts of positive preference statements is they do not state you do not want to be contacted by men who are not gym fit, but that gym fit women are something you like.

“I don’t meet overweight men” leaves no room for misunderstanding "

The question then becomes, which is better

Insult every overweight person that dares to message you

Or

Ignore messages from people you don’t fancy

I’d personally find it very easy to just ignore the messages and not low-key insult people just looking at my profile

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

The problem with these sorts of positive preference statements is they do not state you do not want to be contacted by men who are not gym fit, but that gym fit women are something you like.

“I don’t meet overweight men” leaves no room for misunderstanding "

Nothing will stop you from being contacted by people who simply don't read your preferences... which is by far the biggest issue..

But actually, I once got in touch with someone who stated (amongst other things) her height, and the sentence "I'm looking for men taller than me, 6' silver fixes to the front of the queue". Well, I was taller than her, and her reply was simply "I presume you actually read my profile"...this led to some back and forth whereby because I wasn't 6'4", I wasn't tall enough. This was a full 8 inches taller than her stated minimum (!), but she was adamant it was clear that being 1" taller than her wasn't enough and that she clearly stated she wouldn't be interested in that...So if you're going to be super specific, be super specific and ambiguity free!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ealitybitesMan
over a year ago

Belfast

I only meet women over the age of 40 which is my preference.

In the past I've had messages from couples who have been able to bypass filters due to the male half being above that age limit.

The usual approach was based simply on my age. The woman wanted to be with an older man. That was the only criteria they had.

It may be mild in comparison to some but it's still a form of objectification in the same way women are referred to as milfs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

We can't apply HR levels of equality in the workplace, in the bedroom. No-one is obliged to consider every age/sex/ethnicity if they don't want to. But please, keep it to stating what you are looking for, because stating what you are not looking for, especially if done in a way that has undertones of any "ism" simply won't get you anywhere.

It's the Fab version of the scientific principle. You can only prove a positive, never a negative. People who peddle in negatives scientifically speaking (The earth ISN'T round) are the morons. It's the same with with "No whites/fatties/ginger beards" brigade"

Gentle applause, respectful nod. X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This one is simple for me, and came up in a previous thread. It's simply about whether you positively or negatively state your preferences.

"I like slimmer women who are gym fit" - Positive, non derogatory

"No fatties!" - Negative, derogatory.

The problem with these sorts of positive preference statements is they do not state you do not want to be contacted by men who are not gym fit, but that gym fit women are something you like.

“I don’t meet overweight men” leaves no room for misunderstanding

The question then becomes, which is better

Insult every overweight person that dares to message you

Or

Ignore messages from people you don’t fancy

I’d personally find it very easy to just ignore the messages and not low-key insult people just looking at my profile"

I'd agree. There is expressing a general preference and then there's just being bloody rude.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I actually have deep views about this, but as I've learnt in the past, it's best to keep those views to myself because they will actually offend a fair amount of people.

So I'll pass on this question and just view the comments tbh with you (had enough drama on the forums already)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Don't like profiles that state preferences based on colour.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inx and NymphCouple
over a year ago

bristol

I don’t have an issue with being objectified in a sexual sense

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London

We can overthink things.

This is a site for "like minded" people. My "like minded" will differ from others. I'm fat, not a BBW: fat. I don't like the term BBW and wouldn't respond to someone seeking one, but that doesn't mean others should be made to feel bad for describing themselves or seeking such.

Some black men relish the BBC label, others find it off putting.

It's not for me to police how adults describe themselves or those they seek to meet.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"I actually have deep views about this, but as I've learnt in the past, it's best to keep those views to myself because they will actually offend a fair amount of people.

So I'll pass on this question and just view the comments tbh with you (had enough drama on the forums already) "

Sad day when adults are afraid/unable to hold a conversation with differing views without someone getting offended.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualMan
over a year ago

Sutton

I think not objectifying people should be the way of the world.

However, I would suggest that a large number of people have specifics that hit their spot. It is bit like having that extra sauce that makes your meal zing. In the kink world they do what they do not because they are damaged but because they have a deep need for that kink. The same with preferences.

The issue about discussing preferences on Fab, is that there are people who seem not to realise they are putting their preference in a way that puts down people who don't have that preference or fall outside of it.

Touching on the whole BBC thing, there are real reasons why that debate evokes strong emotions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *emorefridaCouple
over a year ago

La la land

Preferences are fine, being attached to something is fine. Reducing someone to one attribute isn't ok in my book.

I get messages for example about being a snowbunny, no hello etc straight to the point about my skin colour. And it just doesn't fit right with me. Fair enough saying you like xyz, but not I want to sleep with you because you have xyz.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top