There are those bodies that we congratulate ourselves for liking, and then there is what we like.
When Mark Radcliffe’s essay “In Praise of Small-Breasted Women” was published, I didn’t “like” it, because I was worried what my girlfriend would think. That was the first clue that I had failed Mark as his editor.
I was warmly empathetic to his subject matter. Once, I loved a woman who had tiny breasts. It wasn’t why I fell for her, but it became one of the qualities of her that I found sexy. She was pale and pear-shaped, wore trendy glasses. She had the only book by the Marquis de Sade I’ve ever actually picked up and read from. On one of our first dates, I laced up her corset, and birthed fetishes for waists, and breath control, and small breasts.
In the progressive, sex-positive circles in which I run, we praise ourselves and one another for liking bodies that are alternative-trendy. Health and beauty come in many forms, but at any given time, in any particular culture or subculture, there are those bodies for which we harbor desire, and there are those bodies that we congratulate ourselves for liking. Those “real women have curves” images that we pass around on Facebook make the curvy ones feel good about themselves in a Crossfit and pro-ana marketplace. My old girlfriend’s version of small-breasted allure was neither of these models, either. She was not skinny-ripped, did not have a powerful core, did not have an eating disorder. She was librarian-sexy, with a generous rump, and she was hot as hell.
After Mark’s article, there were a proliferation of breasty titles. Josh Bowman cracked me up, even while I was sure he was objectifying worse than Mark’s detractors said he had. Then there was In Praise and Appreciation of Women, which did the same thing, but in a Benetton of flavors. Are we better people if we like all the flavors, or at least a wider array than someone else does? Would we be better people, the gay and the straight among us, if we widened our palates to include the other gender? It’s racist to only want to date your own race, so should we all specify in our OKCupid profiles that we’re looking for “everything except [my own race]”? What about age: do you only date those close to you in age, or should you branch out? Are you ageist if you haven’t yet found the beauty in an old body and celebrated it?
Is there any way to talk about what we like, that isn’t objectifying? I talked to my current girlfriend about it. One of the first things she ever sent me to read was the Femme-Shark Manifesto, laying out her identity as a working class, sex positive, fat positive, POC positive queer feminine woman. As we used to say when I was in high school, I have been told. I started to tell her about Mark Radcliffe’s essay.
“When I tell you the name of it, I know you’re going to say, ‘Oh, Justin,’” I confided. Then I told her the name of it.
She rolled her head dramatically. “Oh, Justin,” she said, exactly the way I knew she would.
She’s accustomed to the culture that tells her that large breasts mean stupidity and low class. She’s well aware of the archetypes that have constructed both Mark’s appreciation and that of the construction workers who whistle. They whistle at my girlfriend. When I say her breasts are perfect, I am not exaggerating, and this needs no more explanation. Perfect is perfect.
When one of her femme friends gives smut readings on the kind of old school butch she wishes would drag her home by the hair, is she objectifying? Or is that okay as long as her tastes are charmingly old-fashioned, or as long as she only ascribes sexual qualities to the physical and social traits she admires? As long as she doesn’t assume butch women are handy with a toolbox, or don’t cry, is this innocent? What if her butch rolls over—will she still admire that firm jawed woman when she’s crying out to be fucked, now, hard?
We like what we like. We can’t change that. While there exists pressure to expand who we might consider, to go beyond what’s in our porn, our advertising, or our particular unicorn fantasies, they are met by the countering forces of the reality that you’re not actually into everybody. Of all the people you have known, only some of them have made you want to kiss them.
The mistake is in trying to intellectualize and make politically palatable our sexual tastes. We can’t generalize any attributes to people based on their physical traits. It does not make you a good person because your sexual tastes run from top to bottom, fair to dark, old to young, fat to thin, and a bad person if, time and again, the same archetype brings you to your knees.
And just as your desires do not determine your worth, neither do your physical traits. It is no more true that small breasted women are immature than that they’re well-read. Fat people are no more lazy or nurturing than skinny people. One sort or another might make you look longer, want to get closer, talk, touch. As much as we want to justify how we feel in a realm that seems defensible, what turns us on isn’t defensible, and we don’t have to try.
—
—Photo Foxtongue/Flickr
Good job, Justin. The irony, if there is such a thing in the post-modern world, is in the word objectify. I think someone with a three-letter name above may’ve made this point but isn’t objectifying almost always subjectifying? There is almost always an implication of “this is what I think is attractive” when you comment on what’s attractive. Same with fetishization and exoticism. When I see a looker and say to myself or the tiny man who lives in my shirt pocket, “Gawddamnz, she is blazin’, yah,” I mean “Not knowing if she is a kind-hearted or awful person, some… Read more »
I like your musings, Tom. 🙂
Not only I agree with what you said, but you said it with a relaxed, thoughtful, non-judgmental tone that’s refreshing.
The problem truly arises when someone starts asserting that attraction or appreciation for an attribute precludes us from appreciating or finding attractive anything else, be that someone the person with the attraction, or someone looking to take offense to that attraction.
Thank you Justin. Damn fine point! “We like what we like. We can’t change that.” This is gospel. It’s just plain reality. And we should not be judged because what we like. After all, we didn’t decide that! But I want to underline two problems. And they’re both related to Politically Correct-edness. 1) People feeling hurt because they didn’t like what one said (and I should really say “insecure people”). When I say “I like big breasts”, someone will feel bad (because they have small breasts, or they feel objectified, or they don’t want to hear about breasts, or… whatever.… Read more »
Excellent points, Valter. You can’t please everybody – especially not the PC police! – and likewise, not everybody can please you. I think the way we talk about what we like can get messy depending on the language used. “I like women with big breasts.” That’s fine. It explicitly states this is *your* individual preference. “Women with big breasts are beautiful.” Also fine. It still implies that this is your opinion. “ONLY women with big breasts are beautiful.” That’s…problematic. That turns an opinion statement into a fact statement, by quantifying it. It’s rarely said that explicitly, but it’s something easily… Read more »
For the record I was only using the big breasts thing as an example, not to pick on a particular preference or make any universal claims about men or women.
Thank you for the appreciation. 🙂 @KKZ: “I think the way we talk about what we like can get messy depending on the language used.” Really? Your examples aren’t different for the language they used, they carry different messages. “ONLY women with big breasts are beautiful.” I think no intelligent man (person) would say such thing. Only a dumb one, or someone so immature and/or narcissistic, he thinks he represents the whole world. 😯 (and we can easily dismiss such person) OTOH, I think a real problem arises when someone say something subjective (“I like…”), and someone else take it… Read more »
The problem comes when people make the leap from liking something to making some larger judgment about the people or things that are being liked. Or going from liking something to suggesting that your preference is superior to other preferences. It’s kind of nonsensical to praise people for their physical attributes, because that’s not praise, exactly. Saying “in praise of ____-chested women” is not actually praising any women at all. It’s saying “I really like ___-sized breasts,” which is not the same thing as extolling the virtues of women who have them. Even when I say something is beautiful, I’m… Read more »
“It’s kind of nonsensical to praise people for their physical attributes, because that’s not praise, exactly. ”
Tell that to David.
“(As an overweight guy with man-boobs, I am also offended by the exclusion of people with breasts like mine. Is my chest not also worthy of praise? Can I not also be praised for all the wonderful things that my breasts reveal about me?) : – )”
And what about us mediums? The high Bs, the Cs, the low Ds? What’s with the obsession with extremes? 🙂
Well, now you’re just hijacking the thread and discounting my feelings. 🙂
It is strange to intellectualize something so visceral. You can really get “in your head” about something that at the end of the day comes down to pheremones and primal feelings. Lots of people get along famously without attraction. Other people are fiercely attracted to one another, but argue constantly and disagree about everything. A few years ago, I lost about 30 pounds and really started hitting the gym. My body was bangin! What I noticed was a LOT MORE attention, often from women who just a few months ago wouldn’t have even considered dating me. What does that mean?… Read more »
I like this comment. But there are other things at play besides just visuals, and I think this is true for all genders. Have you ever found yourself mysteriously attracted to someone not “your type” but they had this…something? Phermones maybe or who knows, but I think it’s a little bit of everything.
Interesting thought. The first woman I ever felt strongly attracted to, I met her before I had identified or even thought about my “type” in women. She definitely had that “something” that made me feel almost magnetically drawn to her – it was surreal for me because I’d never felt that way towards anyone, man or woman, before that. Since then, I have found myself drawn to a lot of women who look like her – dark hair, incredible curves, smooth fair skin and an enchanting smile. So, was she my “type” and I didn’t even know it? Or did… Read more »
For my part, I like what I like.
Anyone who has a problem with that can blow me.
That’s all I’ve got to say about that, and that’s all anyone should have to say about that.
The Wet One
And if they agree with you, can they still blow you, or is blowing you only reserved for those who disagree with you?
Nah, it’s reserved for those who have a problem with it. Agreeing or disagreeing isn’t an issue. Just those with a problem. How anyone can have an actual problem with what I like is beyond me. You have a rigth to decide what I like? I think not. Thus, they can blow me. Now, if you want to disagree with me on the relative attractive of fake vs. real boobs (or agree with me) or black girls vs. white girls, well whatever. We all have our own tastes right? That’s cool. But to have an actual problem with what I… Read more »
@The Wet One: “But to have an actual problem with what I like?”
Some people have the need to policy everybody else’s life. 🙄
Religious fanatics come to mind, but they aren’t the only group doing it: conservatives, right wingers, moralists, and radical feminists as well.
We like what we like. True enough. Why we like what we like is the conversation we cannot seem to have. It’s too ethereal, intangible and complex is one of the true answers. When attempts to be specific are made, then it becomes objectifying – for being specific never can never measure up to the mystery of inclusiveness. We’ve put on a well fitted straightjacket and are complaining that it’s too tight. As Mile L says above – there is no evidence that trying to be specific somehow turns off our mental faculties. When I take my umbrella out on… Read more »
“Why we like what we like is the conversation we cannot seem to have. It’s too ethereal, intangible and complex is one of the true answers.”
I would say that the reason we can’t have this conversation isn’t because we don’t know the answers, it is because we will be so harshly judged for them.
I really don’t know at all. I have no answers, and I’m not saying that to disagree with you. I just don’t get why I like some of the things I like. It’s totally visceral for me. I see a woman with certain features, and I get this feeling warm, hard feeling in my gut. That’s all there is to it as far as I can tell.
Just to add – it is entirely possible that I’m simply not being honest with myself. As much as I pride myself on self-awareness, that kind of pride can often blind a person to how unwarranted it really is.
I’m really not trying to call you out or anything, is all I’m trying to say here. If you have some kind of insight, I’d really like to hear it.
Aw buddy. I ain’t hostile, we’re cool. Me personally, I could wax poetic for hours about the vulgar and the divine. The things I crave that I wouldn’t admit under torture and the selfless angels with the most beautiful inner demons. And more to the point, I could tell you exactly why I want, desire, and starve for each and every one of them.
But I won’t. Because there are ladies present and we must all be on our best behavior.
Even if you don’t “objectify” a woman (whatever that means) there are many instances where physical appearance is over-valued on a massive scale. There are few situations where a woman’s physical appearance should be the main factor in choosing her over another woman. Even if you’re just a guy looking to get laid, hitting on the horny chick is a better use of your time than hitting on the hot chick. If you want an employee or a wife than a physical appraisal is beyond tertiary. Yet there are far more tabloids talking about women with cellulite than men with… Read more »
“There are few situations where a woman’s physical appearance should be the main factor in choosing her over another woman.” According to who? You? Are you and the feminists really trying to decide for all men what we should and shouldn’t find attractive in a potential partner? Based on what? How it makes you feel? Excuse me, I just spilled my drink I was laughing so hard. I read that feministe article and it had the same message and tone that most women seem to take when discussing men discussing women. Namely that men are wrong in valuing women’s beauty… Read more »
Jimmy, I think you make an excellent point when you say that women really don’t gain “insight into the male gaze every day.” It’s particularly interesting how often articles like the one cited talk about “tabloids” and “hollywood” but don’t consider that the test audiences for those products are often quite female (probably majority female for many tabloids). The female readers are actually getting insight into their own gaze, and then patting themselves on the back for “understanding men.” I’d really appreciate it if feminists stopped telling me how much they “understand men” and instead just listened without judgment when… Read more »
Why bother listening, when assuming and judging is so much easier–and so much fun?
This is a good point. A lot of discourse on “objectification” and a lot of feminist discourse about men, frankly, is nothing more than women thinking they can read men’s minds.
8ball: “… women thinking they can read men’s minds.”
Or, women thinking they’re entitled to tell men how they should behave. 😐
Funnily enough, for decades feminism has told men “Stop telling women how they should behave!”… and now many feminists are doing exactly the same (in reverse),
I guess, deep down, everybody likes to rule the world. 🙄
Well done, sir. Well done. (This is from me, a woman.)
Perfectly said.
Perfectly Said QuantumInc!!
I personally had no problem with Mark preferring small-breasted women, but why did he have to be so damn insulting about it, claiming that small breasted women are more intelligent, more athletic, more adventurous and all that crap? What if someone wrote the exact same kind of article praising large breasted women and saying that women with small breasts are timid, neurotic and boring? Or whatever? What if I wrote that kind of article about the alleged personalities of men with large pensis or small penises? It’s one thing to have a preference, it’s another thing to congratulate yourself, and… Read more »
Even better, what I’d a woman wrote an article about guys with small penises saying that they were smarter an more sensitive or whatever? It would be beyond ridiculous. For the record small tits can be perking, that’s a great reason to like them.
This is perfect. Thanks, Justin.
It seems like the real problem here is with the definition of “objectifying” in the first place. It is possible that appreciating someone for a physical attribute is objectification because it suggests fungibility: everyone with that particular attribute is to a certain degree interchangeable. But even if we accept that a certain degree of fungibility is present, that doesn’t demonstrate true objectification because it’s not clear that the observer lacks concern or appreciation for the feelings and agency of the individual with the admirable physical trait. Thus the word “objectification” suggests more than is truly present; in effect, the diversity… Read more »
A great article about objectification, from a lesbian’s point of view, can be found here.
The key is that shift from thinking about a person with attractive features…to simply thinking of the features and ignoring that they are part of a person.
HeatherN, Despite majoring in economics, I’ve actually read Martha Nussbaum’s work (shocking, I know, it’s also where the idea that fungibility = objectification comes from), and there are fundamental problems with it. Most of them involve the kind of “definition creep” that I was discussing above. There is simply no causality demonstrated, ever, that one kind of objectification (according to her definition) will lead to other kinds of objectification (again, according to her definition). Conclusions are lept to with wild abandon, to a point where it’s clear that the real objectification takes place in Dr. Nussbaum’s head when she assumes… Read more »
Such a simple point: We like who we like, and though we can challenge ourselves to open our minds, we can’t force ourselves. Thanks!
I think the last few paragraphs really hit the nail on the head, so to speak. I think we run into a lot of problems trying to rationalize why we are sexually attracted to the people we’re sexually attracted to. Actually, I’d venture a guess and say that’s part of the trouble that the initial “In Praise of Small-Breasted Women” article had. It seemed like it was an attempt to say – see I’m not objectifying, I like these small breasted women for their personalities! Which, then, yeah…lots of problems which I won’t say again cuz then I’ll just start… Read more »
Men aren’t allowed to talk about how we think women look sexy anymore, because that’s objectification. We are only allowed to think a woman is sexy if we make at least 3 references to her personality.
Didn’t you get the memo?
This is the impression I get from A LOT of women :/
Excellent and Truthful Memo.