As a human being, which like all life forms has as its prime directive propagation of its gene pool, it is hard wired (no pun intended) to objectify the counterparty each of us needs to fulfill the prime directive.

As a civilized human being, long past the days of "cavemen", we usually try to keep our secret thoughts out of public discussion, save for those who engage in "locker room talk". The average male, if he has enough testosterone, is probably objectifying a woman every minute or so. The thoughts are always there when confronted with a pretty face or a shapely behind....as they should be and as nature built us to be. Each of us walking the planet today is a result of at least one person objectifying another. Ideally both parties objectified the other.

Let's be honest: A major part of the world economy is geared toward encouraging genders to find ways to be objectified by the opposite gender. It's for males as well as females. For males, everything from gym memberships to Brioni suits to Ferraris to Gulfstreams to GLP-1 peptides---even guys so desperate they will buy a copy watch from an Indian guy walking the street and disrupting pedestrians or folks enjoying an al fresco meal--- are in some way part of the economic objectification game. Objectification or the desire to be objective drives the world economy to a large extent. Sure, I hit the gym for health reasons, but when on a date and woman caresses my shoulders or chest, I'm additionally motivated to continue the workouts. Absent that drive in both genders, the world economy would be 20% of what it is. As Adam Smith might have said, Vive objectification!

Look buff & look successful, and a male increases his chances of propagating his gene pool. The more effective he is at being objectified, the larger the pool of potential mates he can attract, so he can spread his seed far and wide, or at least practice doing it. Practice makes perfect. BE buff and BE successful, and the pool is quite large, especially of women in search of being objectified.

Accept reality with no guilt. Just be polite about it, and everybody wins.

17 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Do you treat the women you meat on Tinder, or in the bars, with respect, just like you would your mothers?

Don't do Tinder or bar girls.

I only go out with, in my eyes chicks that are 10/10

They are always treated like the princesses they are.

Spoil them to death

Edited May 25May 25 by SAFETY FIRST

10 minutes ago, Wingate said:

As a human being, which like all life forms has as its prime directive propagation of its gene pool, it is hard wired (no pun intended) to objectify the counterparty each of us needs to fulfill the prime directive.

As a civilized human being, long past the days of "cavemen", we usually try to keep our secret thoughts out of public discussion, save for those who engage in "locker room talk". The average male, if he has enough testosterone, is probably objectifying a woman every minute or so. The thoughts are always there when confronted with a pretty face or a shapely behind....as they should be and as nature built us to be. Each of us walking the planet today is a result of at least one person objectifying another. Ideally both parties objectified the other.

Let's be honest: A major part of the world economy is geared toward encouraging genders to find ways to be objectified by the opposite gender. It's for males as well as females. For males, everything from gym memberships to Brioni suits to Ferraris to Gulfstreams to GLP-1 peptides---even guys so desperate they will buy a copy watch from an Indian guy walking the street and disrupting pedestrians or folks enjoying an al fresco meal--- are in some way part of the economic objectification game. Objectification or the desire to be objective drives the world economy to a large extent. Sure, I hit the gym for health reasons, but when on a date and woman caresses my shoulders or chest, I'm additionally motivated to continue the workouts. Absent that drive in both genders, the world economy would be 20% of what it is. As Adam Smith might have said, Vive objectification!

Look buff & look successful, and a male increases his chances of propagating his gene pool. The more effective he is at being objectified, the larger the pool of potential mates he can attract, so he can spread his seed far and wide, or at least practice doing it. Practice makes perfect. BE buff and BE successful, and the pool is quite large, especially of women in search of being objectified.

Accept reality with no guilt. Just be polite about it, and everybody wins.

And there are also a large amount of men who do not objectify women, looking at them as equals and not objects. Being attracted to a woman doesn't mean looking at her as a conquest for personal satisfaction. Women, or men, aren't a goal obtained but a chance for having a partner in life.

Any man with enough money can get a lot of women as they sell themselves short and look at things as more important than their own worth. Men who look at women as objects are also a lot more likely to harm them in some way.

Objectifying is a failure of a man's being, and not a natural thing, and most of it comes from watching dad treating mom a certain way.

Yes, society puts emphasis on objectifying, which demeans humans. Some men do have empathy.

Many Western women are entitled, arrogant, controlling big bodies. Their goal is to control and try to be better then a man. They make the worst bosses and bad lovers. They are the object of one thing for me: disgust.

Guilty. But I find that women are just as prone as objectifying men. Sex in the City was built on that premise. It's just the nature of this life. In fact, objectifying women is what sells jeans ffs.

1. She's so hot the denim looks like it's melting right off her.

2. She's so hot my screen just fogged up and the floor is jealous of those jeans.

3. She's so hot even the photographer had to step out for a cold shower.

4. She's so hot those buttons are holding on for dear life.

5. She's so hot "casual denim" just got reclassified as a lethal weapon.

6. She's so hot the whole studio turned into a sauna.

7. She's so hot gravity forgot how to work around her.

8. She's so hot those jeans are filing a noise complaint for how hard they're working.
   
   

I'll let one of our homosexual members make up some one liners about jean-guy.

GG? You honestly think too much.

18 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

ust how many times in your lives have you been found guilty of the sin of Objectifying Women???

I don't consider it a sin. Hooray for Archie Bunker. Cheers for traditional values.

Boy the way Glenn Miller played
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made,
Those were the days.

And you knew who you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days.

18 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

meat.

Gals know how to play the "objectified woman" card GG, e.g., Bhad Barbie et.al.

13 hours ago, swissie said:

He takes no showers and doesn't cut his hair and sits in front of his computer 24/7.

That's going to make it hard for him to get to China in hopes that some sexy Chinese gal is going to marry a stinky farang.

48 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

And there are also a large amount of men who do not objectify women, looking at them as equals and not objects.

There are some women I don't objectify. Blue hair, heavily tatted, and pierced are generally off my radar. I'll leave them for the Incels.
However, GG might find this one to be a hottie.

"Come get some lovin' GammaG" 💋

Edited May 25May 25 by connda

19 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

Meat, glorious meat.

Yes.

Glorious for the few that can afford it.

3 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

Possibly he told daddy he looks great in mommies dress!

I never dress up.

I never even dress, if I can avoid doing so.

1 hour ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Don't do Tinder or bar girls.

I only go out with, in my eyes chicks that are 10/10

They are always treated like the princesses they are.

Spoil them to death

You and Dudley, you mean?

To be fair, I wouldn't <deleted> my mother. She wasn't my type and I'm not a necrophiliac.

What's respect? I treat women politely and sweetly. I flirt before I <deleted>.

Hebephiliac...

19 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

And there are also a large amount of men who do not objectify women, looking at them as equals and not objects. Being attracted to a woman doesn't mean looking at her as a conquest for personal satisfaction. Women, or men, aren't a goal obtained but a chance for having a partner in life.

Any man with enough money can get a lot of women as they sell themselves short and look at things as more important than their own worth. Men who look at women as objects are also a lot more likely to harm them in some way.

Objectifying is a failure of a man's being, and not a natural thing, and most of it comes from watching dad treating mom a certain way.

Yes, society puts emphasis on objectifying, which demeans humans. Some men do have empathy.

No, "objectifying" (in one's mind, like former President Jimmy Carter) is not a 'failure of a man's being'; it is instinct. Being "civilized" is controlling that instinct in terms of outward behavior.

Take away all the superstition and fantasy, and the sole purpose of life is more life. That's true for the birds and the bees, as well as humans. We can dress it up however we want and pretend life is more than that, but that is just fooling ourselves. Cynic that I am, I will also add that "love" is just initial lust that sometimes turns into habit. We call the habit "shared experience" or "things in common". That doesn't cheapen love, as like most things in life it's just a way we fool ourselves into thinking all of what we do and feel is much more than it actually is. That's okay, because self-delusion can be fun and rewarding.

Now, there is a major difference between letting instinct run unfettered and being a member of civilized society. One can control the outward manifestations of instinct, but nobody with even a half full tank of testosterone can control the inner drives of instinct. If I am in contact with a lovely and fit woman, I am going to have thoughts that are driven by the prime directive, which is to say I can admire her form. The beauty of self-control is that one can not let those thoughts drive outward behavior. I can show and feel respect and treat the women as an equal. If she for some reason finds me appealing, she can do the same, as women are also driven by the same prime directive. Now body language is often a giveaway, so many women know full well someone finds her appealing, just as many men can tell if a woman finds them attractive in a sexual way. That's how relationships develop and humans increase the surplus population. Of course men are probably more likely to believe things that the woman doesn't actually feel, but that's a whole different story.

If I may paraphrase Col Jack Ripper: I don't avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence [instinct]...unless it's a two way road.

12 minutes ago, Wingate said:

No, "objectifying" (in one's mind, like former President Jimmy Carter) is not a 'failure of a man's being'; it is instinct. Being "civilized" is controlling that instinct in terms of outward behavior.

Take away all the superstition and fantasy, and the sole purpose of life is more life. That's true for the birds and the bees, as well as humans. We can dress it up however we want and pretend life is more than that, but that is just fooling ourselves. Cynic that I am, I will also add that "love" is just initial lust that sometimes turns into habit. We call the habit "shared experience" or "things in common". That doesn't cheapen love, as like most things in life it's just a way we fool ourselves into thinking all of what we do and feel is much more than it actually is. That's okay, because self-delusion can be fun and rewarding.

Now, there is a major difference between letting instinct run unfettered and being a member of civilized society. One can control the outward manifestations of instinct, but nobody with even a half full tank of testosterone can control the inner drives of instinct. If I am in contact with a lovely and fit woman, I am going to have thoughts that are driven by the prime directive, which is to say I can admire her form. The beauty of self-control is that one can not let those thoughts drive outward behavior. I can show and feel respect and treat the women as an equal. If she for some reason finds me appealing, she can do the same, as women are also driven by the same prime directive. Now body language is often a giveaway, so many women know full well someone finds her appealing, just as many men can tell if a woman finds them attractive in a sexual way. That's how relationships develop and humans increase the surplus population. Of course men are probably more likely to believe things that the woman doesn't actually feel, but that's a whole different story.

If I may paraphrase Col Jack Ripper: I don't avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence [instinct]...unless it's a two way road.

No, it isn't in a man;s instinct to objectify. It's a learned behavior.This is from AI but can also be researched on psychology sites.........Biology vs. Choice: Evolutionary psychology suggests men are highly visual and experience quick shifts in focus toward physical traits during sexual arousal. However, the conscious decision to treat someone as an inert object or a means to an end is distinct from momentary attraction and is completely within a person's control. [1, 2, 3].......................making excuses for certain behaviors is trying to make them correct.

Propagating isn't objectifying. Using after objectifying is. Humans are far above the thinking of animals, which mate then leave, besides a few species which mate for life.

Controlling desire is what separates a man from a boy, and a boy who was also never taught respect for women by his primary male teacher, which is usually dad or can be another male mentor who is moral thinking. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to the female body. When you look at it as an object to use for personal pleasure is when it's wrong.

Of course, I have objectified women. I have objectified men, gay, trans, Whites, Blacks, Asians, football players, singers, dancers..., probably everyone at some time or other. I don't hold onto most of these objectifications all the time, but in the case of women, I generally do.

On 5/24/2026 at 7:21 PM, Sir Dude said:

So many assumptions on the behalf of the OP... so troll and full of BS. You have to square-away that not everyone is in the same position as you are and that others have different situations. Assuming that you are a some kind of real representitive of the global dynamic for all foreigners is just moronic.

Have you considered that there are many happily married/normal types that just live here and just do normal stuff instead of your silly fantasy? So many stupid posts sometimes. Also, assuming you a God's gift to everyone is delusional and a mental health issue in the real world.

You have to remember GG has no life and his ladies main name is rosy.

As to education he might be surprised I would argue that most here have an education greatly surpassing his from the University of real life .

On 5/24/2026 at 9:34 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

Do you treat the women you meat on Tinder, or in the bars, with respect, just like you would your mothers?

I tried to treat the women on Tinder like my mother, but they kept swiping left when I asked them to do my laundry.

On 5/24/2026 at 10:08 PM, BilllyGOAT said:

It is quite extraordinary to watch the great GlammaGoon post endless topics ranking women by age, weight, “promiscuity,” village origin, and body type, spend weeks discussing “slim rural girls” as though browsing livestock categories, openly describe redirecting sexual frustration into forum posting, plan a trip to China to purchase a couple of young ones to play twister with, and then suddenly reappear as the self appointed professor of female objectification. Next thing you'll be telling us silicone love dolls have rights too and deserve free healthcare because of all the abuse they are subjected to.

The funniest part is the total lack of self awareness behind it all. You cannot spend years describing women like customizable lifestyle accessories and then pivot into lecturing strangers about enlightenment and equality because you once read Dr. Zhivago and attended what you consider a “decent uni”, although U-Penn isn't exactly the holy grail of educational nirvana.

At this point, your topics have gone far from being about women themselves and more about your endlessly shifting fantasy of who you imagine yourself to be from one week to the next. Philosopher, sociologist, moral authority, intellectual Adonis, Tinder ethicist, village girl anthropologist. The cast of characters keeps expanding. What's next? CEO of the Indochina regional Ladyboy testing and reconditioning center?

Stop, stop, he's already dead! That wasn't a reply, that was a forensic autopsy.

On 5/25/2026 at 1:50 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

Goon?

Whatever......

Nervous breakdown?

Some say that if women never had a vagina they'd be stacked 20 high at the garbage tip. Before anyone howls me down that's not my view. I'm just repeating accusations from some obvious losers.

Edited May 26May 26 by Rams86

4 hours ago, Wingate said:

Cynic that I am, I will also add that "love" is just initial lust that sometimes turns into habit.

This is a completely false statement if one agrees to admit the validated science evidence.

It is all well and good to be a cynic, provided that one is a cynic and also respects the Scientific Method, and admits evidence-based evidence.

Always listen to Randi....

The amazing Randi.

As soon as I saw the subject heading I knew who the OP would be.

1 hour ago, BilllyGOAT said:

Nervous breakdown?

Yes.

When you use outdated and antiquated terms such as INDOCHINA, in addition to normalizing the objectification of women, I think of brain fog, if not nervousness.

7 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

No, it isn't in a man;s instinct to objectify. It's a learned behavior.This is from AI but can also be researched on psychology sites.........Biology vs. Choice: Evolutionary psychology suggests men are highly visual and experience quick shifts in focus toward physical traits during sexual arousal. However, the conscious decision to treat someone as an inert object or a means to an end is distinct from momentary attraction and is completely within a person's control. [1, 2, 3].......................making excuses for certain behaviors is trying to make them correct.

Propagating isn't objectifying. Using after objectifying is. Humans are far above the thinking of animals, which mate then leave, besides a few species which mate for life.

Controlling desire is what separates a man from a boy, and a boy who was also never taught respect for women by his primary male teacher, which is usually dad or can be another male mentor who is moral thinking. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to the female body. When you look at it as an object to use for personal pleasure is when it's wrong.

Well, if AI says it, it must be correct, eh?

Controlling desire isn't what separates a man from a boy; it's what separates a civilized gentleman from a scoundrel. That being said, instinct impacts on thoughts. It is not a choice. The outward behavior might be learned from a mentor---for good or bad---but the thought is going to happen even if a lad was raised by strict old school Catholic nuns. Once a male reaches puberty, instinct has him on the path to carnal thoughts, whether he likes it or not.

If a woman is a stunner or has extraordinary physical features, one cannot pretend those traits do not exist. Humans do have the ability to ignore thoughts and behave in a civil manner, but those thoughts surface if one is a heterosexual male, and though I do not know, I assume the same for gay men. An attractive woman is going to make a normal man "wonder". He might enjoy her shape or her face, but that doesn't mean he will become a cad. As for her, she did not get dressed and slap on makeup just for fun; she did it to appear more attractive.

We do have the ability to treat people for what character or ability they bring to a contact, but the physical attraction and the thoughts that elicits are still going to happen. If they don't, something is wrong. Maybe a man is down a quart of testosterone.

14 minutes ago, Wingate said:

Well, if AI says it, it must be correct, eh?

Controlling desire isn't what separates a man from a boy; it's what separates a civilized gentleman from a scoundrel. That being said, instinct impacts on thoughts. It is not a choice. The outward behavior might be learned from a mentor---for good or bad---but the thought is going to happen even if a lad was raised by strict old school Catholic nuns. Once a male reaches puberty, instinct has him on the path to carnal thoughts, whether he likes it or not.

If a woman is a stunner or has extraordinary physical features, one cannot pretend those traits do not exist. Humans do have the ability to ignore thoughts and behave in a civil manner, but those thoughts surface if one is a heterosexual male, and though I do not know, I assume the same for gay men. An attractive woman is going to make a normal man "wonder". He might enjoy her shape or her face, but that doesn't mean he will become a cad. As for her, she did not get dressed and slap on makeup just for fun; she did it to appear more attractive.

We do have the ability to treat people for what character or ability they bring to a contact, but the physical attraction and the thoughts that elicits are still going to happen. If they don't, something is wrong. Maybe a man is down a quart of testosterone.

Boys and men think totally different regarding how they look at females, and how they act towards them, but it still depends on how their fathers treated their mothers.

Some men never grow up and look at women as conquests, and some look at them as equals and partners. What a person thinks and what they do are two totally different things, and if a man lets bad thoughts into his mind, he just might act on them, although that restraint should already be there.

Nothing wrong with wanting a woman, but how you go about it matters.

You are right noting the difference between a civilized gentleman and a scoundrel. I see it as immaturity how a boy thinks and acts regarding controlling their desire. Or again how they saw their dads growing up.

On 5/24/2026 at 6:34 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

Dear Folks,

While I realize that guys here on AN probably have never attended a decent uni, and probably, also, don't know much about the OBJECTIFICATION of WOMEN.....

I will still pose the question.....

Just how many times in your lives have you been found guilty of the sin of Objectifying Women???

This is such a terrible sin.

Thankfully, mostly through my upbringing, and through my education, and also through my readings of vast numbers of books, such as Dr. Zhivago.....I have, thankfully, been able to sidestep any wish to objectify my fellow female human beings.

But, what about YOU?

Have you lived a life as fine as mine, meaning a more enlightened life, a life which treats women as EQUALS....???

i have been here on TV far to long for anyone here to pull the wool over my eyes about what YOU guys truly think, and how you treat women, especially women to be found in Asia, and on Tinder.

So, this question has been bugging me, more and more, recently.

Do you treat the women you meat on Tinder, or in the bars, with respect, just like you would your mothers?

Let us please get this out in the open, here, if we may.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Gamma

wow... this is a comedy bit or rage bait,. not sure, but not worth a further posting

8 minutes ago, Des1 said:

wow... this is a comedy bit or rage bait,. not sure, but not worth a further posting

It is always one or the other, or everything.

I refuse to be either one or the other of anything.

If you cannot tell, then this is as it should be.

Why must we always explain the obvious, anyway?

Better for me to just move on to my next Topic.

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

It is always one or the other, or everything.

I refuse to be either one or the other of anything.

If you cannot tell, then this is as it should be.

Why must we always explain the obvious, anyway?

Better for me to just move on to my next Topic.

It's all BS.

Tell us more about your travel to China. Visiting a town in China where the ratio of females/males is only 2 to 1. Surely I will follow you. By all means, report back. At the latests when you are back in Thailand.

9 hours ago, kingstonkid said:

You have to remember GG has no life and his ladies main name is rosy.

As to education he might be surprised I would argue that most here have an education greatly surpassing his from the University of real life .

Are you saying....a REAL-LIFE university, or.....?