Feminism and Anarchism

Title can be changed to Feminism and Communism, if someone wishes.

***

Hello. I'm fairly out of touch with feminism as it pertains to the left. My exposure to feminism, which changed my outlook greatly, came in the form of liberal feminism.

I'm particularly interested in a few questions. What is the position of pornography amongst feminists on the left? Also, what is "sexual objectification" and what is the perspective on this issue amongst revolutionary feminists.

Basically, I was exposed to feminism at a young age. Pictures of women in advertising used to sell merchandise, the sexual nature of the media, et cetera, were what was shown to me.

I seem to lack the understanding to know the difference between sexual attraction or sexual appreciation. What constitutes benign sexual attraction and objectification of women?

I basically went a few years feeling guilty for even looking at a women. Afterward, I realized this was ridiculous. However, the only real option I saw was to reject the whole criticisms involving women being used in advertising.

Is a poster of a half-naked women being used to sell popcorn, for instance, an issue? What makes it an issue? What makes little Johnny admiring the beauty of a women from afar legitimate? Does it become illegitimate when he points it out to his friend, when they make a comment?

I realize these are "stupid" questions, but really, I don't think we grow up in a society that teaches us to truly "respect" women, or men, for that matter. I really don't know the philosophy behind these issues as it pertains to the radical left.

I've been accused of sexist remarks occasionally. I'll admit I'm not in the best position to judge what is such a remark. However, given that my intent is to become a better citizen of the world, so to speak, I figure I should try to find out.

Thanks

Some are anti, some are pro, most are neutral. The general consensus is that industry porn and themes of exploitable teens and rape are bad. But porn is not automatically bad, just the industry is.

I think that's what you were asking, I'm rreeeeally fucking tired.

That's part of it. However, the greater question is what constitutes "sexism." Is objectifying women, appreciating them for their physical attributes, sexism? If not, when does it go too far? Does it?

Is this notion of "objectification" simply a liberal idea that clings to the idea that sex is immoral, or does it have an underlying unethical nature to it. How would sadism play into the matter?

My 2 cents:

Objectification occurs at the exact moment at which a person is denied their status as a living, breathing, thinking human being and instead relegated to the status of an object for consumption, through some form of expression:

In short, attraction is biological and ultimately benign. However, to see a person only in those terms, to equate the satisfaction of your sexual desire as the only purpose of the target of your desire is exactly what it means to objectify them. It's one thing to say to your friend "Wow, she looks great" or even the more crude "She's hot", but to say "That is one hot piece of ass" or, to clip a phrase from another thread on this forum "Why be tied down to one girl when there are so many golden opportunities to get pussy?" The latter phrases equate a "girl" (woman) with pussy. A mere object for sexual gratification. It's indicative of a larger attitude (the actual problem, the words are just a sign of them) that believes that women are merely objects

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with pornography, though in its current form it often leads to the attitudes towards others, and many who enter the industry are exploited. As for advertising, the problem with using an image of a woman to sell popcorn is the "selling popcorn" part more than the image being used. There isn't anything inherently objectifying about a photograph, but when that photograph is used for advertising it changes its character.

Hope that helps.

Ugh, I can feel the catch words and cliche political lines swirling around in my head at this very moment. Gross. But I'll give it a go, and try not to sound like I'm just spitting rhetoric.

Yeah, sexual objectification occurs the minute you go from appreciating a woman's beauty to seeing her as something to stick your dick in. It's sort of complicated, really. When you stare at a woman on the bus, you may think you're appreciating her beauty, but she probably feels like prey, like a horse being scrutinized for sale. Sexual objectification is the ownership of women's bodies, which have been converted into property.

My perspective? Don't look at me like I'm a piece of meat. Attraction should start when I open my mouth to speak, not when you see the curve of my ass. I could go home and beat my children every night. I could be the most repugnant, annoying, idiotic creature on the planet. I could be a serial killer. You have no idea. But men still wanna fuck me because I'm "conventionally attractive" via beauty standards created by pornography & the media.
All very important.

Reference above description of sexual objectification. Sexual attraction isn't like an overriding impulse, either. If you find a woman attractive, it doesn't mean you have to look her up and down like her body is yours. We aren't here for you. We don't exist for the benefit of men. So don't act like it.
Really? Women being used to sell products, and being turned into products, isn't a bad thing? Tell me one time you saw a man sell a cleaning product. Then tell me every time you've seen a woman sell a cleaning product. Then tell me what that woman looked like. Then tell me what role that woman was filling. Then tell me what purpose she served in the advertisement, what camera angles they used to shoot it.

I'm not just being nitpicky. Advertising is a social science. It's psychology. Companies spend millions on that psychology.
They aren't selling popcorn. They're selling half naked women. They're linking arousal with popcorn.

Little Johnny isn't just admiring a woman from afar. Little Johnny was raised in a culture that's told him that women's purpose on earth is to be things men come in. That that woman's purpose is to pleasure him. Little Johnny has been raised in a culture that has taught him entitlement and privilege. Is he thinking about whether or not that woman he thinks is just so beautiful feels comfortable with his staring? Is he thinking about her saftey, her life, her feelings, her children, or mother or father or family? Or is he just thinking about how hot she looks.

Par for the course.

Sidenote: The use of "you" in this response isn't necessarily directed at the poster. It's sort of a generalization, and not supposed to be a hostile attack on anyone in particular.

Alright, a good bunch of reasons. Here is my first point.

I'd be quite uncomfortable making a comment about a women having a "nice ass." However, if I saw a picture of a "nice ass" without a women attached, doesn't there remain some aesthetic value? Why is it wrong to praise someone for their aesthetics, acquired from birth, and not their intellect, also acquired from birth.

I'm not particularly attractive, in my own opinion. I'd be quite flattered if I was complemented on my physical attractiveness. Am I simply delusional in taking this as a compliment. To me it's the equivalent of saying, "from my perspective, you have a valuable characteristics." Even outside of capitalist, people will still have human capital they will be valued and devalued for.

Are beauty standards in any way innate? Why do I find X women attractive and not Y? Can I simply "will" myself out of this attitude? If so, how?

If I stare at a women, why would she feel like prey? Isn't that a poor judgment of me on her part? Perhaps it's not the same for women, I don't know. However, men attach a very high aesthetic value to women. To be put in the room with an attractive women and not "stare" takes a serious and amount of effort. It's like if the sun is rising. If the sun felt like "prey," by us staring at it, should we stop? Isn't it the responsibility of the offended party to "get over it." I'm not intending to be crass, but this is essentially the argument of John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. Offenses don't deserve legal consideration because someone getting offended is their problem. There are obvious problems with this view. I just wonder why a women would feel like prey. Are women taught to see men as beasts to fear, or something of that nature?

What explains how a women supposedly feels "like prey" while most men, in my experience, quite like the idea of a women evaluating their appearance - at least positively.

Advertising with women in sexual positions does seem to contribute the idea that it's appropriate to look at women sexually as "objects of beauty." However, people are physical objects. They meet the criteria. The difference is how we should treat people, with respect.

I suspect I am a very demented individual that makes it hard for me to understand the sexual views of most people. BDSM seems to be an interesting concept within this discussion. It is often selected as the "evil" pornography contributing to negative views of women and such.

I imagine I sound very dense. I'm quite ignorant. I have the media. It tells me women enjoy being looked at as much as men. It tells me people like compliments on their appearance. Relationships and sexuality is one of those things I find quite difficult to understand as my social/environmental skills are somewhat lacking, to be completely honest.

Perhaps you would be interested in the Feminist user-group? These questions may find more of an audience there.

- August

Ending this is the general idea of the left feminist movement.

Uh well sometimes yes. Most of the stuff we learn on self-defense centers on the (rare) scenario of a guy popping out of nowhere and raping us, or a stranger being creepy and watching us sleep for like a week and then raping us. Naturally we take care to avoid that scenario, it's more of a problem with how we as a society teach about rape than with you specifically. That said, it does happen, so it's natural to feel threatened if you start acting like the kind of person who might jump out of nowhere and rape us or watch us sleep. Not to say there aren't problems on our side, too, though.

If a guy's staring at my bustline, that's a pretty clear indicator that he's more interested in that than in me. And at the very least that's incredibly rude.

Men have the privilege of being taken seriously, so being physically evaluated seems like a nice change of pace. It's different when a good 60% of your daily human interactions consist of that... you'd get sick of it too.

Lamps are physical objects. Difference is they don't have a personality, life experience, etc. We do, and don't appreciate being treated like lamps.

Restricted members cant join groups!

That's interesting. However, isn't there a case to be made that we naturally value certain people - the beautiful, intelligent, singers, talented, et cetera?

Also, from the perspective of utility, looking at women sexually might bother some and make others happy. Would it be safe to say the majority of women are bothered by men looking at them? I don't have access to a poll, but I assume women discuss sensitive issues the same as men.

Is there a benign form of looking at a women and appreciating her beauty, or even her "sexual attractiveness."

All I can think is a society where individuals simply can't look at one another sexually seems more of an ancient idea than the direction I would suspect a leftist society to head. It seems like a return to the Victorian perspectives on sexuality.

Is a man who looks at a women really causing a problem if, overall, he has an appreciation for women as people, first, and sexual beings, second. Is it really realistic, or fair, to expect women to control their dicks in such a manner? I know similar arguments would be used to oppose horrendous crimes. I'm just saying modern society teaches men to be look at women sexually. We also seem naturally inclined to do so.

Why is it fair to demonize men for looking at women sexually and not, equally, blame women for judging men as "predators" and being uncomfortable with others appreciating their sexuality.

It would make me feel awkward to walk around naked in public. It think this awkwardness is irrational. It's socially inappropriate for someone to force me into that situation. However, there seems to be a need for short-term reforms in how we approach sexuality.

I think a women who finds me attractive purely on a sexual basis should be comfortable saying "hello, want to have sex?" I don't think I should feel awkward about it. I think an ideal society should function with such openness and honesty about the fact that our sexuality is innate.

Perhaps instead of criminalizing men as "predators" we should encourage women to be more comfortable about their sexuality? After all, isn't sex predatory? Isn't it violent, dirty, animalistic, et cetera? Haven't we just romanticized an action that is essentially cooperation for the purpose of mutual satisfaction.

Isn't a women looking a man up and down or vise-verse essentially what sexuality is? Why entrench a culture of "respect" into an action that isn't about that? Isn't the only thing necessary a "hands off policy." Couldn't the discouragement of sexual "leering" be seen as something else?

Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I try to be respectful of women. However, for a man to walk down the street and look at a beautiful women has very high aesthetic value. If I see a beautiful women and look at her, I feel quite good.

If this action is wrong, I'm obviously going to be psychologically trying to rationalize the behavior. Therefore, it might take a little extra effort to convince me to oppose it. I also have no idea how to do it. It's so habitual.

How exactly are sexual relations to work under this kind of feminist model. What I consider the "sex-positive" model simply says anything goes, in many cases. In what I'd consider the "sex-positive with limitations" being argued here, I'm quite confused.

I guess we meet people who we enjoy the company of and have similar interests, become friends, and then get permission to be "sexual." It seems to me that people are more likely to have sexual interest in someone attractive they hate than someone unattractive they like. Can this really be "changed." Is that the goal, here?

Men really enjoy looking at women. That's why many behave like dogs. They need to control themselves, yes. However, completely eliminating an aesthetic appreciation of women, or even sexual appreciation, seems to me like it's giving up something quite valuable.

Maybe you're onto something here. The invention of the bikini was heralded as a huge victory for feminists.

I guess the real problem is that capitalism markets women as something to be... not quite appreciated fully, in the sense that you're saying. It basically markets us as sex objects, in general.

Until we can overthrow capitalism though it's something that the segment of our society who's into the female form will have to work on, because a society where both genders can just walk up to someone and say "hey, let's fuck" is a goal worth striving for, but the way we do it now is just annoying and patriarchal and has no tact whatsoever.

sorry I'm not articulating myself too well, it's like 5 hours past my bedtime.

No, everyone objectifies, and in a capitalist society that objectifications becomes a money maker, when you go to a night club to try and find someone to sleep with, your are objectifing people as people to sleep with, men and women.

People objectify everyone, when a plumber comes to your house you objectify him as a pipe fixing machine.

When people want to sleep with someone, they are not sleeping with your mind, they are sleeping with your body, get over it.

Vise versa, women in many societies use men as much as men use women. Women oogle just as much as men.

Objectification is a fact of life, and a lot of it has to do with self image and self esteem.

Probably it has to do with both, there are some universal standards, and some that are society based. It has nothing to do with Anarchism or Socialism, its culture and biology.

Capitalism of coarse does that, I agree, but of coarse it is based on reality. Capitalism markets things and manufactures desires to sell things.

It's very selective in what it markets, though.

Sure women like men too but you don't see us being sexist pigs about it or condescending you at every available opportunity.

The questions you're asking require really complicated answers.

Women who like being looked at sexually by strange men are usually doing so because they have been taught that the validation of their existence is directly correlated to their ascription to beauty standards and the level of desirability men exhibit towards them.

Society is structured so as women take their social and economic status from the men that they are dating or married to. Women who are married have greater access to resources than women who are not, and are less likely to be relegated into poverty in the way that single women and working single mothers are.

When you look at a strange woman sexually, she hasn't given you her consent for you to look at her that way. You're simply exhibiting your sense of entitlement by believing that it is your right as a sexual human being to look at her in that manner. It is, in fact, not your right to stare at a woman's breasts. Those are her breasts. They are not placed on her body for your enjoyment. They are placed on her body for her enjoyment. You don't have the "right" to stare at them, she may grant you the privilege to look at them, but it is, in fact, up to her. Consent is what it really boils down to.

You're completely and totally ignoring the context in which you are looking at someone sexually. Historically, woman's bodies are not considered theirs, they're considered their fathers/husbands/brothers/male overlords. Historically, women are objects. You're looking at them sexually within the context of a rape culture, where consent isn't important and women are raped all the time. Three out of five women are survivors of sexual assault. Fifteen out of sixteen rapists walk.

Yes, because of consent.

Do you have any idea what it is like to live in constant fear of rape? No, no you don't. Every time I have sex, I do so with the awareness that I could be raped or could be in a situation where I have to protect myself from rape because of the culture I live in.

We shouldn't, but there are vast power dynamics going on here. So we do. Because of the current context of our culture. Which is something you need to sit down and think about.

End rape. I'll be a lot more comfortable with my sexuality when you end rape. Could you go do that for me? I've been trying really hard to do it for two years, I'm really tired. I'd like a nap. Thanks.


Like someone before me said, a lamp has ascetic value. Lamps are inanimate objects. Women are not lamps. Women are women.


You're missing the part about consent in sex-positive feminist models. We don't live in a culture of consent. Consent is the hinge the model works on.

I see what you're saying. However, why do I need consent to "look" at another person in whatever manner I wish? Who is anyone to tell me how I can and can't look at people in a public space?

I have no idea what it feels like to be in fear of rape. However, don't women have the ability to ensure their security? They shouldn't have to train in martial arts or carry a weapon. However, I shouldn't have to avoid bears. They should treat me with respect. Unfortunately, some people in our culture are terrible. We account for bears. We need to account for those people. More importantly, of course, we need to address what causes rape.

How is a man looking at a women sexually contributing to rape? There was an argument by Catharine Mackinnon against pornography, for instance, as contributing to the harm of women. Rather poorly, in fact.

As a refutation, the societies with more liberal views on sexuality seem to report better treatment of women (if I recall my information correctly). Furthermore, the argument that objectification contributes to sexual abuse lacks a causal justification. Ronald Dworkin criticized Mackinnon specifically on this point. There is simply little or no evidence to support the conclusion that our sexually promiscuous and "objectifying" society actually contributes to the problems feminists are trying to address.

Isn't it possible the opposition to sexualized feminity comes from an attempt to control the symptoms of our culture, one being that women fear men who look at them sexually, rather than addressing the real problem - rape itself.

I don't see how rape now is more commonplace that it ever was. It was never properly dealt with in any historical period that I'm aware of. Women are consistently working towards better rights in the West. We need to put much more legal responsibility on men when it comes to issues of rape.

I am quite sympathetic to the notion that some people are rapists and some people are morally repugnant. I believe there was a poll saying 6 of 10 men would rape a women if they wouldn't get caught. Ridiculous. People need to be raised to treat women with respect.

If someone looks at a women sexually, as they will, they shouldn't automatically be doing something wrong, as I see it. Women shouldn't feel uncomfortable. How is a man supposed to feel? If I suddenly see an attractive women and naturally look at her, do I tell myself "oh no look away?"

Do I go up to a women, introduce myself, and say, "hello, may I look at you sexually?" That seems to be totally off the wall with respect to how sexuality actually works. Feminists should accept that we're all horny animals and work around that fact.

Imagine being in a room with a bunch of attractive nude men, or women, all of which you find particularly attract. Then be told you aren't to look at them sexually? How exactly does this work?

Men may be taught this talent of looking at women "sexually," but I don't really know how to stop it. When I'm having a discussion with a female classmate, I appreciate her intellect and engage her in that way. When nothing is happening, I am drawn to scenery. Trees, women. We all have aesthetic value to us, men included.

To attempt to control the gazes of men by making us feel like guilty predators seems to move in the wrong direct, as I see it. Women have it a lot worse, but men don't get all the advantages in the gender focused world. We have problems as a gender. We need to ensure that changes in society don't infringe upon our rights. The men's rights movement, for instance, is almost completely demonized by mainstream society. If I recall, a person wanted to be absolved of responsibility of a child when they were told by the mother they were infertile, or some such thing, and the courts through it out. Men are constantly on the hook for child support in circumstances that don't call for it and consistently held to obligations as "men" that are completely unfair.

How does being made to feel terrible when looking at a beautiful women work in the interests of male society? It's my understanding that we seek gender equality because it is best for all of us. I like being sexually objectified. I see regular threads on these forums. Radical leftists seem to greatly admire creating long threads simply for the purpose of posting attractive women. Yes, they got consent to have pictures taken of them, but to say "that goes with the territory," (being sexually objectified), woudl seem to imply that one could make the same claim about women who occupy public spaces.

I sympathize as much as I'm capable of understanding. I can't truly understand women's issues any more than I can truly understand civil rights issues. I do my best. I just can't how you invision a society to be feasible, for one, and to be in the interests of equality (from a male perspective), for two.

Perhaps I am in the norm with males who appreciate sexual objectification. I know a guy who dislikes it when the women is unattractive, but only then. These topics utterly confuse me. I try to stay out of sexual dilemmas. However, a society where we talk to one another and say "hello, may I have permission to look at you sexually," seems so devoid of the innate sexuality of humans and the passion and beauty of existence that comes from admiring women, both aesthetically and sexually, and men, aesthetically and sexually (depending on a person).

Famous painters who are not seen to be homosexual are admired for their paintings of the male form. I don't see this as evil objectification. I wouldn't see it as wrong had the painter not asked permission to make the painting. It's free expression.

Again, I am quite confused. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Perhaps we simply disagree, or I am too dense. Either way, I appreciate the responses.

Tbqh I think Dooga's right. As much as we don't live in a culture of consent, we do live in a culture of female victimization. He should be questioning whether he values people as objects or as people, but you should be questioning why him doing so is so wrong and why it makes you uncomfortable. Looking at at your butt and raping you are not the same thing, and it's frankly asinine to imply that it is.

15 of 16 rapists (I question that statistic -- it seems too low) walk because of lack of evidence. Proving that sex happened is easy, proving that it wasn't consentual is not. So the legal system doesn't really offer us a solution to this issue. It's also somewhat common to take men to court on rapes that really didn't happen, too.

It's somewhat of a nuanced point, but it's in regards to what War Cry said earlier, about looking at somebody as if their body is a product you are interested in.
You could say 'why do I need consent to look at another person in whatever manner I wish?', in regards to looking at a human being in a positively dehumanising way and you could also say 'why do I need consent to say to another person whatever I wish?', in regards to, as I think most if not all women will experience in their life, walking through a street one night and having a man or a group of men make comments about you - as if your body is a product they are interested in, and often (if not most, the vast majority, of the time) they do it in a way to directly intimidate you - and you could also say, if you want, 'why do I need consent to touch another person in whatever way I wish?'
That last one seems to cross the line, doesn't it? Because you invade somebody's personal space.
But you don't have to touch somebody to do that - women's personal space is invaded, or constantly minimalised all the time and that is why it is also common for a women to experience being touched by somebody when they haven't given their consent. My sister had somebody walk past her at speed in a supermarket and touch her on the arse, somebody who she later found out was the manager of the store. I have witnessed in broad daylight in the middle of the city a friend of mine being grabbed by a man after she had a brief argument with his friend - who was preaching about Christianity. I also know more people who have had direct experience with outright sexual assault and rape. Of course that line was crossed, to direct physical contact. But that line from observation to invasion is blurred and pushed all the time for women. It is not a line that is hard to cross, from looking at somebody's body with no thought of their consent and touching with no thought of their consent.
Men don't go from looking to touching to rape because they're all awful, horrible individuals; men are, like women, all a product of society, socialised into seeing the roles of men and women and the ways in which they interact from birth.
To say 'I don't have to consent to look at somebody in a certain way' is fine, but the way you look at somebody is inextricably linked with the way in which you view them as people, or as a gender, and therefore the way in which you feel it's acceptable to interact with them. You can communicate with the way in which you look at somebody, and you can say to women; 'I don't care if you see me looking at you like this, I don't care if you don't want me to. I find you sexually attractive so I'm going to indulge myself whether you like it or not'. It's only social limits which stop that from going to 'touch' in the first place - but it's those same kind of social limits which make somebody find it acceptable to look at somebody in that way; in a way that you don't care about them as a person, you don't recognise their personhood, you don't acknowledge how they feel about the way you're treating them.
The personal space of men is acknowledged and respected. In so many ways and in so many situations the personal space of women isn't. That is why men feel it is acceptable to stare at women's bodies regardless of how it makes them feel. The basic social rule one learns as a child 'it's rude to stare' is because you can invade somebody's personal space with your eyes. That's why it isn't women's fault when they feel vulnerable because a man is staring at them 'like they're going to follow them home'. If a man is staring at them then that man clearly doesn't care about respecting that woman's personal space, or respecting their consent.
Sexual objectification is a real issue, it's not simple prudishness like some try to make it out to be. The dehumanisation of women in regards to sexual relationships is what leads to assault and rape - because a woman isn't seen as a person who has to consent to interactions with their body. One could link that to the issue of abortion if they wanted to - women's bodies are seen as social property, not part and parcel of a human being who can meaningfully consent, or deny consent.
Only something like 5% of rape accusations are shown false. Only a little more result in a conviction of rape. 90% of rapes go unreported.
I don't exactly think you could say false rape accusations are a 'common' problem.

Sadly yes, this is still true. For all society has done in regards to treating women as people, it hasn't truly changed it's view on female sexuality. Feminism still has a long fight ahead of itself, and the fight is likely only to get harder. As not only must feminism now contend with sexism, now with people denying there sexism, but it now has to fight the ideas that spawn sexism and those are probably the most entrenched ideas in the world.

Actually many women do, its just men don't care as much, and don't think of it as being condescending or sexist, because men don't base their value on women. Many women do. I think the reason for that is historical, due to in the past and in many places now, women having to rely on men economically.

Your not infringing on her rights by looking at her, women look at men to, your not doing anything to her, the way you view other human beings is your business.

Thats rediculous, is it rude? Yes, is it low class? Yes, will being think your being a dickhead? Yes. But that does not mean your infringing on anyones rights, no more so than looking at a mans muscles.

Its being rude and having low class, but not an infringement on peoples rights.

As far as I can tell, rape is severely looked down apon. Also historically womens sexuality was something to be respected as if it was someting sacred, more so than mens. Now women are sexaully liberated, along with that comes sexual objectification.

I'd like to know how that statistic was found.

I’m not sure how consent is exactly related to the “right”, or lack thereof, to look at someone’s body.

Certainly, you might not want someone to look at your body, but legally speaking you have no recourse to tell them to stop looking unless there are other pertinent circumstances (e.g. looking into your bathroom with a telescope whilst your naked might infringe on whatever piracy laws). Likewise, repeated cases of staring by your boss at your breasts may infringe on sexual harassment laws, but that's not what is at issue here.

Ignoring other factors, we shouldn’t live in a society which attempts to govern what we look at.

The consequences of abrogating someone’s consent with regard to their body are severe – rape, assault etc. I don’t think looking at someone, even if they don’t want you to look at them, deserves any punitive action whatsoever. Sticking your finger up is probably the best remedy/self-help.

Reducing it all to a common denominator of consent is misleading. It's misleading because it obscures what consent is – consent can be implied or express. If you reduce consent to only express consent of 'I give you consent to look at my body' and ignore the fact that women, men, and all other people who want to fuck consent to being "checked out" (in a socially appropriate manner), then well, you’ve adopted a very restricted view of what consent actually means, so that when you apply it to areas where consent serves as a legal term - e.g rape - then you've adopted an inappropriate definition and one which would necessarily limit female's agency.

Social norms dictate where it is appropriate to ‘check someone out’ and how you do so (e.g. a quick glance at someone’s body in a club is appropriate, or a glance at someone when they’re not looking). But those norms can be violated – staring is typically considered by default ‘strange’ because it goes beyond what we consider the appropriate time and manner in which to check someone out. But then again, prolonged eye-contact is a good way of flirting.

The reason why a group of men staring at you and making comments about you whilst you're walking down the street at night is inappropriate/reflective of chauvinistic social attitudes is because there is absolutely no element of reciprocity. Its not 'wrong' because you haven't consented to that sort of seedy behavior, even though you haven't, or because they've violated your personal space, even though they might have violated what "personal space" exists on a public street, its wrong because it misogynistic.

A man staring at a woman might be inconsiderate about that woman’s “personal space”, a man might be going past that woman's implied consent to check her out...but so what ? I wish I could have a mechanism whereby I could refuse "eye consent" to everyone that I'm not interested in, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen, and I have to accept that people who I don't want looking at me may look at me along with those who I do want looking at me.

And just because you look at someone sexually doesn't mean that's the only way you look at them.