Hello PoetryVoting

Vote

Voting-Boards

Home

HomeFollowingInboxNotifications

Read

ReadLiftedFeedsListsHeartedHistoryMy WritingNew poem

Explore

ExploreOrbitsWordsTagsClassics
Log in
0
Stars
0
Embers
0
Alerts
0
Inbox

Vote

Voting-Boards

Home

HomeFollowingInboxNotifications

Read

ReadLiftedFeedsListsHeartedHistoryMy WritingNew poem

Explore

ExploreOrbitsWordsTagsClassics
Log in
0
Stars
0
Embers
0
Alerts
0
Inbox

objectification / necrophilia

by removed.polaroid-scrabble

for logic to work, certain coordination words must be excluded from ever attain a thesaurus privilege, certain words must attain the same consistency as numbers already present, for worded logic to work, certain words cannot entertain synonyms or antonyms, and must be freed from the shackles of sophistry. can one animate object truly objectify another animate object? i ask, because this supposed feminist narrative of man objectifying a woman seems rather bogus - as i have to reiterate - can an animate object truly objectify another animate object?            i "think" (i.e. "i" deny) this to be highly unlikely, near impossible...                   i am innately inclined to the puritanical observation, that i can only objectify an inanimate object, point being: a man can no more objectify a woman than an animate object can make an animate an inanimate object without having to subject himself to hammering a nail into a plank of wood: using a hammer. how can an animate object (a man) objectify another animate object (a woman) - without, first of all objectifying a part of him as quasi-inanimate, namely his phallus?   women do not seem to be complaining about objectification of a woman, rather, a man objectifying his member -   and isn't that the point, to posses an object that you're not subject to obeying?                              once more how can a woman be objectified, when in fact man is attempting to de-subjective himself from his genitalia?                          an animate object can't objectify an animate object -                             since the contradiction is: both are in animation...                   the only time objectification happens is when an animate object subject an inanimate object into a purpose... a hammer is hardly a woman, while is hammer one-dimensional,    a woman is either mother, sister, vice,       a one night stand, a girlfriend, or a wife...    women are never objectified -    they are subject to the self-objectifiction of man, by man alone... and if you think that's post-modernist jargon, let me spell it out for you: T, O, G, E, T, A, H, A, R, D, O, N. objectification happens when an animate object subjects / encompasses an inanimate object into a subject of the animate object's intent...         unless of course you care to disclose a fetish for necrophilia... since only in necrophilia are women actually objectified.
Request permission to use this poem
r
Written by
removed.polaroid-scrabble
36 / M
For You?
r
Written by
removed.polaroid-scrabble
36 / M
Published
Nov 3, 2017
Time
3m
Permission

Request to use this poem

Tell removed.polaroid-scrabble how you would like to use it. We review requests before forwarding them.

AboutBlogSupportFAQPrivacyTermsContact
© 2009-2026 Hello Poetry/v27.0 [production] by @eliotyork
Explore
Hello PoetryVoting
Write