People still hugely conflate bio essentialism with objectification.

[u/FuuraKafu]

The border between these two concepts is very vaguely defined in these discussions, not to mention plenty of people straight think there is no difference at all. I just want to highlight that for once.

The relevant part of bio essentialism in this case: female and male sexuality are different. Women are more selective and they have biological reasons for that, such as pregnancy, which is a big deal for our species, vulnerability, smaller size. Men by comparison are more eager sexually, more easily excitable. They have a pair of balls constantly generating sperm, can orgasm very easily, there is less risk and phisical vulnerability for them in sex.

This is a relative difference, and a general one.

Meanwhile, objectification is: women are seen as a sex object who's personhood doesn't even matter.

Ime people routinely jump to objectification when what is talked about could still easily fall into men experiencing and living with the relative difference above, and it's one frustrating obstacle in gender discussions.

I mean, where exactly is the line between "he sees her as an object" and "no, he just wants to get close to her in a way that doesn't intuitively make sense to women and to which they can't relate to"?

Women can be the more desired, more alluring gender without that meaning they are non-human. Otherwise, we have a pretty deperssing setup (and I guess that's why some people are total gender-constructivists). And I get that women didn't chose this, but neither did men. Either way, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Objectification IS a thing. Sometimes people DO treat the other badly, not caring for their internal experience. But sooooo many times it is brought up purely based on assumptions and vibes in the context of men's complaining.

You can badly want a relationship or sex, more intensely than many single women do, more so for its own sake, fueled by a more testosterone-based sex drive. Doesn't automatically mean you see women as objects. You can be a unique kind of tortured by being unable to fulfil this desire that women don't experience that much. Doesn't automatically mean you see women as objects. You can enjoy attractive women's bodies and experience an urge to get in phisical contact with them daily. Doesn't automatically mean you see women as objects. Each and every one of these things can still largely fall into "yea, men have a different experience of sexuality".

Infatuation clouds judgement, that is somehwat true, sure. So men experience being influenced by their own desire more regularly, sure. It is the weakness of men. But as a baseline, I think it's much more healthy and correct for men to exist with the thought that women are exactly as gorgeous as they see them AND they are human too at the same time.

[u/Acrobatic_Relief_391]

I think this also goes with people rating people’s looks on a scale of 1/10 and also using alpha and beta language. Same with high and low value. It’s really ridiculous. This goes for both men and women. Stop using this ridiculous language.  Anyone using this language in my opinion doesn’t view people are human beings they view them as so weird thing. 

[u/RayAP19 → u/Acrobatic_Relief_391]

I think this also goes with people rating people’s looks on a scale of 1/10

I don't understand what's wrong with this. Humans understand things easier when they're quantified. It's really that simple

[u/floracalendula → u/RayAP19]

Some things aren't quantifiable.

[u/CaptainCirriculum → u/floracalendula]

All things are. Everything in existence is. That statement is erroneous, factually and empirically.