Objectifying women with memory techniques

So. Yesterday i was talking with my friend and she got interested in the PAO system. I explained her the fundamentals and started telling her the funny stories that were being depicted every time with random numbers around us. Everything was going well until we came to 34, that for me is represented by M(3)argot R(4)obbie naked like in the wolf of wolf street, because for obvious reasons it’s easier to remember, distinguish and to be used fast in a little story. At this point my friend told me that i was objectifiying women by doing that (being really annoyed by my approach), and asked me if I had other naked women in my 00-99 PAO system. I told her that I have 2 porn actress too, and that sometimes it happens also with 65( Jennifer Lawrence) if it makes an immediate image. I have a lot of other women that are not naked of course, but there are certain images that activate me emotionally more than others.
Now, my point is this. In my opinion telling me that I am objectifiying a woman by imagining her naked in a PAO system is like playing in Risk and being accused of being racist for attacking Africa instead of Europe.
Anyway I wanted to know other opinions because I started questioning myself. I am not saying that having naked people in a PAO is something necessary, but I don’t see on the other hand why it should be seen as objectifying women.

5 Likes

That’s the wrong argument… simply go with you are objectifying all the Ps in your system, not just certain women… the fourth point in this list makes that very easy to argue because a different number would simply put a different person in that place… and you don’t care.

3 Likes

Tell her make a PAO with naked men and call it even. Funnily enough, I have one naked woman (JOI from Blade Runner 2049) and one naked man (Archimedes in a bathtub), so I guess I’m in the clear? :joy:

2 Likes

One question to ask is how imagining those scenes will make you see people (men or women) in real life.
As it has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, memory training changes your brain. And it might change your heart too.

2 Likes

In my list, a PA: 34 is Margot Robbie - To Shush (sign of silence), 65 Jennifer Lawrence - To Clap.

The only problematic with objectification of people, it’s when you’re treating people as objects, by physical interaction with them. But what happens in your mind, it’s yours, and forever yours only. When you think, you don’t touch, you don’t harm. Or are we saying, our thoughts are the reflection of events that occur in alternate realities? LOL.

Ask these questions:

Is there anything wrong if you look at a woman and desire her sexually? Why?
Is there anything wrong with objectifiying of people, when it is your thoughts? Why?
Is there anything wrong with objectifiying of people, when it is a thought experiment? Why?

To whoever think they can choose what others should or shouldn’t think:

“The only repulsive thing here, it’s the desire to prohibit people from thinking as they wish. That for me, it’s one of the worst offenses. To try to limit someone from thinking as they please, it is, if I may say: the prohibition of the only true or the truest form of freedom. You, taking away what a person can think about: you’re making no difference between them and machines, or non sentinents forms of life, or in other words, you’re reducing a person’s personhood by limiting their freedom of thought. Paradoxically, committing the crime, you’re accusing us.”

3 Likes

What if I told you I think about murdering you all the time (I don’t, it’s just a hypothetical :wink:), even though I will never actually kill you? What if your wife told you that while you make love she always thinks about your best friend, even though she would never cheat on you?

1 Like

It is good to ask questions.

The difficulty when dealing with certain people (in this instance it happens to be one that identifies as female), is that once that person has decided what you are doing is not OK according to them, very little will be able to take the conversation back to the positive tone you started with.

In my experience, you should have a few replies ready to shoot from the hip instantly (to reduce suspicion that you prepared the reply in advance). My favorite has always been “You know even though I never live up to your expectations, I always exceed my own.”

Something else, as was mentioned earlier, a platonic view states that the distinction between thought and reality might not be as clear as what you think it is. Thus what you think is of extreme importance. What you do in private is more important for your mental well-being than what you do in public.

2 Likes

First question: what is the meaning of ‘’ wrong ‘’? Or in what sense this word is being used here?

1 Like

Mental images are always okay, no matter how they look like. When they stick, feel free to use them. You don’t harm anyone when you do this. It’s your personal choice.
Just be careful when you describe certain images to someone as they could be seen as offensive. This can even be dangerous these days, unfortunately. When something is questionable, like nudity, you are always free to say something like ‘That’s a personal image. I’d prefer not to talk about it.’

Maybe some feminist’s mnemonic images would include lots of p*nis removal. But as long as nobody knows about it, who cares? It’s not as if violent thoughts automatically make you a violent person. Look at the old debate about ‘killer games’, usually known as ego shooters. Or think about all the people that produce horror movies. There are probably very few voices who would say that Steven Spielberg and John Carpenter are bad persons because they made films like Jaws and Halloween.

1 Like

well in this case it’s not prohibiting, it’s judging someone else for attacking China in Risk instead of attacking Middle East .

1 Like

yes but it would be like saying " I am justified in slapping kids because the others are doing the same" XD

But here the point is obj a person by imagining them naked instead of something else. If you obj a person by making them ride a sleigh is different than making them naked and having a sexual connotation.

Playing Risk is already promoting violence. It destroys friendships and families :joy:.

3 Likes

XD you aren’t wrong

2 Likes

RisiKo!

That’s not what objectify means; plus, you can imagine a person naked without objectifying them. Also, you can objectify a fully dressed person.

1 Like

Exactly. Has OP’s friend ever seen yoga pants? :joy: Are we supposed to have all the women in our systems wearing baggy pants and sweatshirts?

1 Like

The person I learned memory techniques from is an ex-national champion, so I can’t name him, but even when he was teaching me there were times when he said - I cannot teach you my 35 or my 96 cause I just can’t share my PAO on those. It was too disgusting/embarrassing/whatever it could be. I have some of those myself now. So sometimes you just gotta keep some of those weird ones to yourself.

2 Likes

This in such an interesting topic… I would say that we often recognise junk food for our body but not often junk values for our brains. Our body and brains our the product of what we ‘feed’/ give it. We know that sports people use visualisation to prepare themselves for races.
I guess the question is not why should I feel bad about doing this because I won’t act on it… but what values do I want to represent… Would I want to be treated / thought of in that way? Would I want someone to think of my daughter / son in that way.
If we were susceptible to thoughts and ideas, then marketing wouldn’t work

2 Likes