You're not going to get rid of the concept of physical beauty. It's ok to be attracted to certain body types or whatever, as long as you recognise these aren't objective things, and that socialisation has warped your "natural" inclinations to some degree.
As a woman (and speaking only for myself), I don't want to be seen as just an object. I also don't want to be seen as a bodyless mind, floating in a cognitive, sexless void.
My body and how I present it is part of me, a sexual object is a facet of who I am and sometimes, in specific circumstances, what I want to be seen as. But it's never what I only want to be seen as.
Basically, don't be a shithead, be clear about your own preferences, and remember there's a person behind the attractive presentation you're casting a sidelong glance at, a person who has chosen that presentation for reasons that most of the time have nothing to do with you.
tl:dr, Boobies are hot, remember there's a person attached.
That you're generally only seen by others as an industrial object in physical reality and want to be seen as both a person and an object of attraction (which is probably not true even in US hellworld, people anthropomorphise or sexualise other people accidentally all the time, crossing the street, at the counter, etc. Only through the constant watchfulness of the Volcel Police does society remain from falling into an abyss of consensual humanistic horniness!)
Or that your conception of yourself is as a mental entity with no attachment to the physical (in which case super cool, you do what makes you happy! Not everyone has as visceral an attachment to physicality as I do.)
Or that you wish others saw you as a pure creature of mind (Which, if you do, they should. They're probably not going to because of the above chronic horniness, but they should try.)
An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".[1] It is generally considered to be a bad argument because the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good" is typically irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined within a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent.
Appeal to nature is a well trod logical fallacy. You would have to answer the question "Why would attraction being more natural make it better?"
For that matter, how are you even measuring better or worse?
And those are more useful lines of inquiry that can lead you to an interrogation of phenomenon like hyper-sexualization and the commodification of sex and aesthetics under capitalism. But those things aren't bad because of where they exist on a scale from natural-unnatural, those things are bad because of the harm that they manifest for the people that experience those things.
Not OP, dont think there's a way to completely uncondition yourself and become 100% "natural". We're at our core cultural and therefore socialized. To unravel that completely is to dehumanize yourself, if that makes sense.
I think the most we can hope for is to find the problematic preferences that are underpinned by sexism, racism, and different "body phobias" and try and move past them as best we can
Hence the quote brackets. Natural is of course itself an artificial category. Nothing unnatural exists.
What I'm saying is that we've been socialised, and some of that has fucked us up. But it's also part of who we are, and if it isn't causing us distress or hurting others materially, a few problematic kinks or social attitudes floating around your head are not that bad.
For instance, do I like pretty dresses because they're beautiful and I like them and their aesthetic inherently? Or because I grew up exposed to an endless barrage of Disney Princesses and other exhortations to femininity? Fucked if I know, but the latter probably had its effect.
You're not going to get rid of the concept of physical beauty. It's ok to be attracted to certain body types or whatever, as long as you recognise these aren't objective things, and that socialisation has warped your "natural" inclinations to some degree.
As a woman (and speaking only for myself), I don't want to be seen as just an object. I also don't want to be seen as a bodyless mind, floating in a cognitive, sexless void.
My body and how I present it is part of me, a sexual object is a facet of who I am and sometimes, in specific circumstances, what I want to be seen as. But it's never what I only want to be seen as.
Basically, don't be a shithead, be clear about your own preferences, and remember there's a person behind the attractive presentation you're casting a sidelong glance at, a person who has chosen that presentation for reasons that most of the time have nothing to do with you.
tl:dr, Boobies are hot, remember there's a person attached.
deleted by creator
I'm not sure what you're saying.
That you're generally only seen by others as an industrial object in physical reality and want to be seen as both a person and an object of attraction (which is probably not true even in US hellworld, people anthropomorphise or sexualise other people accidentally all the time, crossing the street, at the counter, etc. Only through the constant watchfulness of the Volcel Police does society remain from falling into an abyss of consensual humanistic horniness!)
Or that your conception of yourself is as a mental entity with no attachment to the physical (in which case super cool, you do what makes you happy! Not everyone has as visceral an attachment to physicality as I do.)
Or that you wish others saw you as a pure creature of mind (Which, if you do, they should. They're probably not going to because of the above chronic horniness, but they should try.)
deleted by creator
Excellent post! Agreed 🙂
deleted by creator
Appeal to nature is a well trod logical fallacy. You would have to answer the question "Why would attraction being more natural make it better?"
For that matter, how are you even measuring better or worse?
And those are more useful lines of inquiry that can lead you to an interrogation of phenomenon like hyper-sexualization and the commodification of sex and aesthetics under capitalism. But those things aren't bad because of where they exist on a scale from natural-unnatural, those things are bad because of the harm that they manifest for the people that experience those things.
it is 12:51AM CDT and by God I am linking the Xenofeminist Manifesto
Based
deleted by creator
Not OP, dont think there's a way to completely uncondition yourself and become 100% "natural". We're at our core cultural and therefore socialized. To unravel that completely is to dehumanize yourself, if that makes sense.
I think the most we can hope for is to find the problematic preferences that are underpinned by sexism, racism, and different "body phobias" and try and move past them as best we can
Hence the quote brackets. Natural is of course itself an artificial category. Nothing unnatural exists.
What I'm saying is that we've been socialised, and some of that has fucked us up. But it's also part of who we are, and if it isn't causing us distress or hurting others materially, a few problematic kinks or social attitudes floating around your head are not that bad.
For instance, do I like pretty dresses because they're beautiful and I like them and their aesthetic inherently? Or because I grew up exposed to an endless barrage of Disney Princesses and other exhortations to femininity? Fucked if I know, but the latter probably had its effect.