Indeed, that is the flaw. Overemphasis of slut shaming/objectificationispart of the problem and doesn't really give you any idea why slut shaming exists. Simple assumption that slut shaming is bad is also ridiculous and doesn't address any underlying purpose of slut shaming in the first place.
But I wait for your reply as to how "objectification" is not part of female sexuality.
Keep waiting, 'cuz I never said that. Objectification is a part of human sexuality (as opposed to female sexuality, since it requires one to objectify and one to be objectified). Slut-shaming is a social trend that, if I were to guess, came about as a way to prevent women from being in charge of their own sexuality (whether explicitly intentionally or not). Slut-shaming and objectification are not the same thing and you can not use an argument that applies to one and infer that it applies to another. Female sexuality, like male sexuality, is completely natural and beautiful and fun for everyone. Guys get to choose when and where to be sexual beings, women are always seen as sexual beings, whether they like it or not (which, of course, they often do, but they don't get to choose when). If a girl takes control of her sexuality by choosing not to care how she's seen by men, she's a "butch dyke" or "fat pig". If she chooses to take control of her sexuality by having sex with whomever she pleases, the media tells us she's a slut.
What you are is, really, same coin of two different sides. Negativity of female sexuality denoted by victimhood only enhances the value of female sexuality. Assumed value of female sex is enhanced by the traditionalism (i.e. overemphasis over virginity and to sell yourself out is obviously a slut). By the same extension, over-emphasis of rape,objectification, and other victimhood mentality of female sexuality will only work against your supposed goals, which is to devalue the female sexuality. If anything, it increases the value (respect and honour) of female "sexuality" by crafting more rules and social regulations to regulate men's sexual approaches to women. It is highly unusual that objectification would even become a problem, since sexual revolution "lifted" the social customs that were engineered to maintain relative worth of female sex. Now, we are seeing reintroduction of new rules to raise the relative value of female sexuality.
You're really sticking to this "negativity of female sexuality" thing, even though I've never presented female sexuality (or male sexuality, for that matter) in a negative light. And since when is my goal "to devalue the female sexuality"? Rape culture (ie: The perpetuation of attitudes that rape is sometimes not rape, that boys who commit rape need to be protected because they are on a sports team, that it's OK to blame the victim of rape, etc.) is not something being targeted in an effort to de-value female sexuality. It's something being targeted because rape is not OK, and pretending rape culture doesn't exist will absolutely not help these attitudes just go away.
Now I know what you're trying to say: That drawing attention to a problem sometimes perpetuates the problem itself.
Here's a better example of that: A friend of mine posts a Facebook link to a story about a dangerous trend where assholes put thumbtacks in pieces of cheese and leave them in dog parks for dogs to eat. Warning to all dog owners! Of course the comments were full of "People who do that should be slashed to pieces by razor blades", etc. I did some simple Googling and saw that there had only been one case of "thumbtacks in cheese", just one, and nobody had any reason to worry about anything. "Yeah, but what if he gives other people that idea?" my friend asked, unaware of the irony that the panic created by this Facebook post would do more to spread this idea than anything the original wacko alone could have done.
Right? I'm not tuning you out or missing your point, man, I'm just telling you your diagnosis is flawed.
I'm certainly not saying we need "rules and regulations" to regulate men's sexual approaches to women. I'm saying if a woman is trying to accomplish something that has nothing to do with her sexuality, we shouldn't make obnoxious comments about how ugly she is (or even how hot she is if that happens to be the case). If a woman is approached on an elevator and expresses discomfort or a lack of interest, the guy should do the logical decent thing and politely back off. If a girl is free and open with her sexuality, sharing it with anybody she deems worthy, we shouldn't let the media tell us she's a slut. If a girl gets raped, we shouldn't try to shift the blame on her because she was "dressed provocatively". As men, we actually get all of these things by default. Why are we judging women (or feminists, to be more specific) so harshly for wanting the same things?
And of course we have to ask ourselves, "Where does female negativity come from,why do we HAVE confirmation biasand why does it exist?"
Simple:Female sexual objectification is powerfor women. At no point in time of human history can we ever claim that women have not been objectified for their looks. It would be dishonest and incorrect view of our human nature and social engineering that was birthed by our predecessors.
"Female negativity" is ridiculously vague and means nothing.
Confirmation bias exists because people see what they want to see or, to be more specific, what they are trained to see.
And if female objectification is power for women, then feminism wants to get rid of this power. Shouldn't you be for people willingly giving up power? They'd only be hurting themselves, right?
While human history goes a long way in explaining how our current circumstances came to be, we certainly can't use history as a model of how we should live our lives today. Sure, we can accept the presence of a "human nature" (although this could be the subject of a whole other discussion) and we can talk about human instinct that is ingrained in us through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. However, despite these factors we are in charge of our own behavior. We are capable of making decisions about how we behave, as a society, that can benefit or hurt people within that society. So yeah, there's a historical reason why women are objectified. That doesn't change the fact that a women shouldn't be objectified if she doesn't want to be. We have that choice. Women don't. Is this so challenging of a concept to grasp?
