Here's a solution: Become gay.

I don't think the gods intended men to understand women. And, just for the record, I've heard lesbians say they don't understand women either.

Here's a solution: Become bisexual and pick up the hottest tranny you can find.

Here's a hint: Think of them as people, and try to get to know them as you would anyone. Women aren't hard to understand. It's the objectification that dehumanizes them. :D

Is it really possible to pursue someone with sexual intent without 'objectifying' them? After all, the ultimate goal of dating is to eventually have intercourse with the other person, which is the physical act of stimulating your penis or clitoris using their body (a physical object) as the stimulator.

Seems to me the only relationship that precludes objectification is a celibate one (which no person in their right mind would contemplate).

On the rare occasions that I can get someone into bed, I'm always courteous and do my best to satisfy their desires; but ultimately sex itself is a selfish act.

It's like that old Ann Landers thing: 'If you REALLY loved me, you wouldn't ask me to.' =P

No wonder those are rare occasions X3

"Objectification" here refers to thinking of women as sex objects and putting them on a pedestal of sorts, which can make them seem unreal and unapproachable. I suggest nixing this thinking first and foremost for people nervous about others of their fancy, perhaps by talking to them as you would anyone else and putting the thought of dating on the backburner. ^^

"After all, the ultimate goal of dating is to eventually have intercourse with the other person, which is the physical act of stimulating your penis or clitoris using their body (a physical object) as the stimulator."

Thank you so much for enlightening me; the mechanics of this "vaginal intercourse" intrigue me to no end! I used to think dating was for companionship which may happen to include sex -- not necessarily intercourse, as obviously, this is not possible nor desirable for many couples, heterosexual or not, not to mention is not nearly the most indulgent act for a receptive female.

Well, when I said 'intercourse' I meant all forms of sexual contact between two human beings of either gender. I just can't imagine having a romantic relationship with a man or woman that didn't involve some form of intimate physical contact leading to orgasm for both parties. As for companionship, that's what friends are for. I just get tired of hearing 'sex' being intertwined with 'love', as if sex without love is wrong in some way.

I've got enough friends I don't have sex with; When I go to bars or parties or hook up with someone using the Internet, I'm looking for a fuckbuddy. If a relationship forms, I wouldn't be averse to that, but at my age I'm not holding my breath.

Sexual activity is my primary interest, and if I can get laid a few times a year, that's enough. Relationships can be nice, but they can also be painful. And expensive...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse

Intercourse typically means copulation, whereas "sex" is a broader term depicting other acts of sexual gratification. Just to avoid confusion in the future.

I didn't suggest love is a prerequisite of sex -- I stated accurately that dating is seeking companionship, which may or may not be sexual in nature. The relationship model that applies to you doesn't do so for all, which is why I advised this poor bloke to chill with seeing ladies as anything more than companions for the moment. This tends to form lasting relationships of both platonic and romantic types, which seemed to be sort of what he's pursuing versus a fling. ^^

OH SHI-

That page shows ladybugs doing it. *fapfapfapfap*

Are you forgetting your own words with which you first replied to Yiffityspiff?
"Is it really possible to pursue someone with sexual intent without 'objectifying' them?"
That was in form of question, it did not specify this to your case of seeking a fuckbuddy only.

Second statement that made me lol was "Seems to me the only relationship that precludes objectification is a celibate one (which no person in their right mind would contemplate)"
If you think that acquiring an orgasm from someone objectifies that person, then there's something severely wrong in your head :D Did you objectified your mother for breastfeeding you, or clothing you, or telling you not to drink peroxide? Receiving an orgasm from someone is just the same as receiving anything else in life, something that is a gift, not something you come and take like a drill to make a hole for the screw with which you hand your porn calendar on your basement wall.

And about your primary interest in life, you could do better even if your goal in life was just to open a can of yoghurt.

But if I seek out sex with someone, I want to use their body as a device to bring me pleasure. Just because part of my pleasure comes from giving them pleasure doesn't make it any less of a selfish act, which to me seems like objectification.

My real point is, I don't think 'objectification' is necessarily a bad thing. I once had a friend tie me up and blindfold me, tickle me until I screamed for mercy, and then proceed to fuck me in the ass. If that's not objectification, I don't know what is. And it seemed like a positive act to me!

TOO - MUCH - INFORMATION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual.....bjectification

I have an eery feeling you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to objectification in the sociological sense, which is what I intended, originally.

But holy shit, you win if you promise to never leave a comment like that, ever again.

Well, that's the funny thing; I generally agree with the Dworkin/Stoltenberg definition, but don't share their negative conclusions. (I'm more in the Paglia camp, I guess.)

Same as with Guy Debord and his 'Society of the Spectacle'; I support the concept, but I still think commodity fetishism is cool. (If I've got to choose between socialism or barbarism, sign me up with Attila and his gang.)

We'll just have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings; and if you ever feel like dehumanizing someone, drop me a line. =D

actually, the thinking them as people is what kills me.

normally, I can read the other person just fine. And usually, this also means I can anticipate what they're thinking and change my speechpatterns to avoid fights, show compassion, have fun, or tease them.

However, when it comes to love and relationships ...

I seriously have no idea how the other person responds to situations. That works on a level of body-language subtlety I can't begin to grasp. And that's what confuses the hell out of me. =) trying to understand whether or not the other person is making a connection with me, or if I'm in another dead-end relationship. (being in a 2 year relationship that ends with "I thought we were just friends" really makes a guy paranoid about what the woman is thinking)

Ahh, okay then. ^^

Getting past that is the tricky part. What it seems this stemmed from is lack of communication about direction.. the best romantic relationships start as platonic friendships and sorta grow from there, but you have to be sure that's what both people want/are expecting.

Did you make it clear that this was your intention when you began going out with her? True, it might have been a cop-out, but starting at the roots is the best way to go..