for immature menor primitive men to club a woman over the head and drag her to their cave to have their way with her, it is a tendency in some men that needs to be looked at and trained out of them.

So why aren't women up to the same sport?

you seem to believe women just coldly decided assholes are better for some reason and then just went ahead as a group and started selecting them.

Their is no organized situation that prompts so many women to be this way, save for a combination of genes, habits, etc..

1. It does not invalidate the original observation that women select badly

2. It does not excuse the perpetrators, the WOMEN

If men can be trained by women to not rape at will. Well, women can certainly be trained to not pick bad men as a habit of desire.

OR CAN THEY?

It seems it always goes back to the ORIGINAL PROBLEM are women or are women not responsible for ANYTHING?!? If not, then my time supporting 'feminism' in ANY form is SO OVER. SO FAST.

Because then I am dealing with willfully diobedient yet entitled children, am I NOT?

Lets not underemphasise this..

The Democrap ticket is the STRONGEST it has been in at least twelve years and really, prior to the Bill Clinton era, in WELL over three decades.

We have a super charismatic bright cosmopolitan kid up front who is eager to make things happen, during a time when the right is perpetually at record lows. Behind him we have a super seasoned veteran who believes in family and has a super foreign policy background. Both seem like they belong togethers, brothers against the evil Bush system.

That is why the Republiscum are already siccing methhead inbreds on Obama before he is even out of the gate. They understand what they are potentially up against.

Maybe I can now summarize a little bit what I said in my previous posts to you, knecht.

- I think "objectification" as a word should apply to any kind of situation in which a person is treated as only a means to some end, as simply having "a function" (the end is not the person, but something you get by using this person). So "objectification" to me is quite close to mean "using" someone (for some goal).

- So I'd say objectifying a person as a waiter--a mere 'tray for food'--should be just as bad as objectifying this person as a stripper--a mere 'source of sex'.

Except, a waiter is never considered a mere 'tray for food' except among the most brazen and heartless among us. And it is not only men who do this to waiters, women do it too, as I have witnessed myself. Also, gender has an impact on this. Men are encouraged to be assholes throughout their lives by the women around them-- invariably by immature attractive young women who cherish AND REWARD men who act like assholes-- but that does not invalidate the premise since men typically will prefer younger women for sexual liaisons that lead to things like having kids, for instance. Men are all too easily demonized and the word 'objectification' is stuck to the word 'men' all too often, an injustice prerpetrated by shuttered feminists who refuse to face up to the fact that lots of women ALSO, for instance, objectify waiters, among other types of people. That most women are not interested in male gigolos means there are fewer examples of male objectification by women. Yet, when we hear results from out in the field, at Chippendales shows, for instance, we find that if ANYTHING women tend to objectify men even more so and are ruder, more than men, who supposedly 'objectify' women strippers.

- Consequently, the reason why it 'feels worse' to be objectified for sex (as a stripper rather than as a waiter) is that 'society' (including the stripper, the viewer, 'others' in general) still goes by the stereotype that sex is bad.

This is a gross oversimplification as well as being largely false. Sex is not bad, per se. Nto even in this prudish society. What is bad is sex outside of marriage, among a certain group. Sex with animals is considered bad. As it is with dead people.

What you might be thinking is that since many people frown upon deviant sex that therefore you conflate this with the reaction you imagine women have to being looked at by men to therefore mean that the two are related. Womeen feel bad when they are looked at by someone who they do not desire in return or with whom they cannot imagine being. This places your idea of the 'observer' as the 'objectifier' in a precarious position since the definition is not objective but SUBJECTIVE and in the women's mind-- worse yet, it is not made clear beforehand.

Handing out money at the door in a strip club or giving the stripper a dollar does not count either because, again, strippers love attention from men who THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO. Maybe not in the same way or to the extent they might feel in other corcumstances, but nonetheless there is no consistency to the story women concoct.