Term for bodies/sex obession?

June 1, 2008 4:29 AM

Is there a term for a seemingly excessive pre-occupation with bodies/ sex? I have a male friend (in the U.S.) who is constantly judging/thinking/commenting about: the figures of women AND having sex with as many women he can. He's in his forties and as for himself he's always in shape, takes steroids, tanned. He likes nudist clubs and doesn't mind, but is not obsessed with, porn.
posted by mrmarley to society & culture (34 comments total)

Sex addict?
posted by fixedgear at 4:35 AM on June 1

Does he call his behavior excessive, or do you?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:55 AM on June 1

Is there a term for a seemingly excessive pre-occupation with bodies/sex?
I'd guess sex addiction, or a fetish of some kind, or even an obsession or fixation.

I have a male friend (in the U.S.) who is constantly judging
Entirely normal. Default state, in fact.

/thinking/
Also entirely normal.

commenting about: the figures of women
Rude, especially if the comments are unflattering, but not a sign of mental problems in and of itself.

AND having sex with as many women he can. He's in his forties
Well, even if he is crazy, he's not doing too badly; at least his capacities match his desires, and vice versa.

and as for himself he's always in shape,
Good.

takes steroids,
Bad, and very likely to be the cause of his unusually high sex drive. (Among other physical and emotional problems.)

tanned. He likes nudist clubs
Skin cancer is no fun, but vitamin D is good.

and doesn't mind, but is not obsessed with, porn.
Probably because he's dating a lot.

He's doing himself some subtle harm, that won't really show up for another ten years or so, but he's on track for a lonely and sick old age. But (so far) it doesn't sound like he's harming anyone other than himself. If you want to help him, there's more talk about steroids in this thread, and the salient example of everyone's favorite uncle.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:01 AM on June 1 [3 favorites]

I'm not saying his interests are "good" or "bad" - it just seems a little out of balance relative to the average person in their 40's and I was hoping there might be some kind of term like "nymphomaniac" - that might include a focus on "bodies" as well....
posted by mrmarley at 6:33 AM on June 1

voyeur
posted by netbros at 6:37 AM on June 1

it's the steroids
posted by matteo at 6:38 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]

primal?
posted by Flying Squirrel at 6:40 AM on June 1

The male equivalent of 'nymphomaniac' is 'satyromaniac", but using these terms to describe someone usually reveals more about the person saying them than the person so described.
posted by xchmp at 6:45 AM on June 1 [2 favorites]

MAUDE: Do you like sex, Mr. Lebowski?

DUDE: Excuse me?

MAUDE: Sex. The physical act of love. Coitus. Do you like it?

DUDE: I was talking about my rug.

MAUDE: You're not interested in sex?

DUDE: You mean coitus?

MAUDE: I like it too. It's a male myth about feminists that we hate sex.
It can be a natural, zesty enterprise. But unfortunately
there are some people--it is called satyriasis in men, nymphomania
in women--who engage in it compulsively and without joy.

DUDE: Oh no.

MAUDE: Oh, yes.
posted by brevator at 7:05 AM on June 1 [4 favorites]

Narcissist.

He is obsessed with his own body and how he appears to others.

Also, with the sex with women thing, he is not so interested in porn, and he is not interested in a relationship with one woman for even a short time. It seems he is more about the numbers and the notches on the bedpost than sex per se. Here too, narcissism.
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 7:15 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]

Without knowing the fellow, I would guess narcissist as well. The "judging/thinking/commenting" on superficial appearance combined with an inability to form attachments. His "excessive pre-occupation" with these matters suggests a race to escape from self-reflection, an indication of low self-esteem.

Still, as long as he's happy in the moment and he's not hurting anyone, then good for him.
posted by SPrintF at 7:55 AM on June 1

Somatic narcissist.
posted by availablelight at 8:05 AM on June 1

Totally agree with narcissism.
posted by jluce50 at 8:15 AM on June 1

...Among other things, "sexist".

I disagree that he is harmless. He may be harming countless young women who are just now discovering that yes, there are educated men out there who think you are property or trash, just because you are female.

"Chauvinist" also works.
posted by cmcmcm at 8:18 AM on June 1 [2 favorites]

Seems like a regular straight (?) guy, although none of the guys I know (and this includes workmates) make comments about women's bodies. That's kind of gross, but there are guys who do that sort of thing. These men may also be closeted, and are trying to demonstrate how "not gay" they are. Heh.

And most guys, whether they admit it or not, look at porn. Thank god my wife is Japanese - she doesn't have a problem with porn, as long as I do it discretely.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:20 AM on June 1

My vote is narcissist with a touch of low self-esteem. However...

Steroid use? Well, since you didn't describe what he's taking and in what dosages for what periods of time, it's pretty hard to see that as a signal of anything. I really get tired of the sensationalized demonization of steroids. There's a difference between 'use' and 'abuse'. Do you know how many men in their 40's and beyond are perscribed androgel to smear on their bodies daily? That hardly makes them steroid freaks with roid rage, but buy just mentioning 'steroid use', you've prejudiced us to see something that may not really be there.

Wow! Where did THAT come from?? I digressed... where's my morning cigarette?

It's totally open to interpretation and almost difficult to say without knowing the person in question what his real issues are - otherwise this is just an exercise in sterotypes...

In other words, the guessing game pretty much applies to everything you've mentioned; take it all with a grain of salt.
posted by matty at 8:59 AM on June 1

Has he always been like that? Maybe he's feeling insecure about getting older.

Or maybe he's just a jerk.
posted by AV at 9:01 AM on June 1

This is classic Casanova or Don Juan behavior, isn't it?

And if you don't like eponyms there's always roué, bounder, cad, rake, player, etcetera. Wiktionary for roué mentions a German word which would seem to have possibilities of meeting your criteria pretty directly: "Lustmolch."
posted by jamjam at 9:14 AM on June 1

Out of the Shadows

Sexual addiction takes many forms, from obsessions with pornography and masturbation to engaging in voyeurism, cybersex, affairs, sex with strangers, incest, and rape. Though solitary forms of this addition may not be overtly risky, they can be part of a pattern of distorted thinking and identity conflict that can escalate to involve harming the self and others. The defining elements of this kind of addiction are its secrecy and escalating nature, often resulting in diminished judgment and self-control.

A lot of people shrug off sex addiction like food addiction, they see themselves as just "naturally sexual" or whatever, but it's the same sort of thing that happens to alcoholics who just get "thirsty" and "enjoy a drink or two" - it takes a toll on health, destroys relationships, and in the end destroys the person. It's a real thing, common (both men and women, but more men), serious and the sooner it's recognized the better - the nature of it is "escalation", a search for ever greater thrills, and therein lies the problem, compulsive escalating thrill seeking, loss of control and self destruct.
posted by stbalbach at 9:15 AM on June 1

To quote an old joke: what's the definition of 'nymphomaniac'? Someone who's having more sex than you are.
posted by box at 9:16 AM on June 1

Or maybe he's just a jerk.

agreed.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 9:32 AM on June 1

Are you sure he's not gay and overcompensating?
posted by rhizome at 9:52 AM on June 1

"Maybe he's gay" is the new "dump the MF already".

Apart from the steroid use he sounds like a pretty normal, if rude and insensitive, guy. The steroid use is a big warning flag, though, and could be influencing his behavior in a lot of subtle and not so subtle ways.
posted by Justinian at 10:20 AM on June 1

"He may be harming countless young women who are just now discovering that yes, there are educated men out there who think you are property or trash, just because you are female."

Would it be better if they never discovered that, and lived the rest of their lives under the false impression that that is not the case? Besides, nothing OP said is really describing him as thinking that these women are "property or trash" at all, let alone simply for being women.

Not every guy who's an asshole to women is a chauvinist.
posted by toomuchpete at 10:20 AM on June 1

...and the salient example of everyone's favorite uncle.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:01 AM on June 1 [2 favorites +] [!]

At the request of the family that photo essay has been taken offline.
posted by ZakDaddy at 11:02 AM on June 1

Sounds like a run-of-the-mill douchebag to me.
posted by spilon at 11:54 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]

"Shallow" may be a better descriptor than terms used above such as jerk or douche-bag?
posted by wilko at 12:54 PM on June 1

If he treated or thought of other men as objects, then we might consider him some sort of aggressive narcissist, or perhaps even a low-grade psychopath.

But since he's only treating and thinking of women as objects, then I'm afraid most men would call his behavior normal and acceptable.

(IANAD)
posted by muddgirl at 1:17 PM on June 1 [2 favorites]

"Shallow" may be a better descriptor than terms used above such as jerk or douche-bag?

As the saying goes: "I'm a party animal, you're shallow, and that guy's a jerk." :)

muddgirl If he treated or thought of other men as objects, then we might consider him some sort of aggressive narcissist, or perhaps even a low-grade psychopath.
There's nothing to say he doesn't. He wants sex from women, therefore treats them in a certain way; he wants companionship and approval from men, therefore treats them in a certain way. But it's easy to go too far in that line of reasoning, and condemn all humanity.

The distinction IMO is more about input, and how he reacts to it, and how much it matters to him how other people feel, how happy or unhappy they are. How he takes a "no". How he takes complaints about his behavior (which is a point the OP needs to consider). Whether it comes from women or men, a real narcissist will probably not take contrary interaction well, or may not realize at all that they have been given it. If it's his way or the highway, women or men, he's probably a narcissist of some sort.

But since he's only treating and thinking of women as objects, then I'm afraid most men would call his behavior normal and acceptable.
Men, just like women, judge people on the face they present to the world. This guy probably puts up a damn good front.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:27 PM on June 1

I think we're talking at cross-purposes, aeschenkarnos. I am talking about sexual objectification. From mrmarley's description, I would say that mrmarley's friend is

viewing [women] solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own. This is done by speaking/thinking of women especially as only their bodies, either the whole body, or as fetishised body parts.

That is a classic description for objectifying thoughts, as displayed in his behavoir.

My point was that thinking of women solely as sexual objects is rather common in our society, and many people (including, apparantly, you) see it as normal, healthy male behavior. My point was that men rarely objectify other men, and when they do that behavior is considered a anti-social. Men don't LIKE when they are objectified. Men who see (and use) other men as stepping stones to wealth or power are generally disliked, if not actively hated. Women who do such things are crucified. Yet in the sexual domain, it's somehow acceptable?

No, I don’t want to be objectified, not ever. Not by random people on the street, not by an intimate partner.

posted by muddgirl at 3:16 PM on June 2

I generally agree with the article in your second link, muddgirl, but I do think stereotyping is the default human mode of thought. We meet people in certain contexts, and think of them contextually, and if the interaction never goes outside of those contexts, we don't need to change them, so long as we accept the possibility of change. Your bus driver is a complex, fascinating, deep person with a long list of likes, dislikes, memories and experiences; but you want him to drive your bus. The barista at the coffee stand, who the bus driver is very attracted to, is a complex, fascinating, deep person with a long list of likes, dislikes, memories and experiences; but he thinks of her, until he gets to know her (and he may never do so) just as "attractive woman". Neither of these is wrong, unless the interaction goes further.

Thinking of women solely in terms of sexuality even when he could be getting to know them as complex people is a stupid thing for a man to do, because it deprives him of all the other meaningful and valid interaction with women he could have. It is also an immoral thing for a man to do, because it leads him to ignore women's thoughts and desires and therefore, makes him more likely to do women harm. So, any smart and/or decent man will condemn that kind of behavior.

My point was that men rarely objectify other men, and when they do that behavior is considered a anti-social.
Even in the sense of objectification as solely thinking of a person as some simple thing, I disagree with that (as does the writer of your second link). Economic objectification: "Customer", "Employee", "Manager", "Rival". Social objectification: "Rival", "Opposition team member". Political objectification. Etc.

Men don't LIKE when they are objectified.
Leaving aside the inherent objectification in that statement :), nobody likes to be over-simplified when they want to have some interaction with you that is important to them. People don't like to be objectified by our friends as "guy who gives me lifts and lets me watch his big TV"; but we don't really care about being seen as "customer wanting toothpaste". We simplify those we don't care about much, and learn the complexities of those we do. Offense comes when the expectations on the two sides are different.

Even in the sexual context, women do engage in "meaningless" casual sex too and have as much right (although it's more a matter of inclinations, IMO) to do so as men do. Our questioner's friend may very well be seen as only a sex object by a lot of the women who have sex with him. I would certainly hope so.

Men who see (and use) other men as stepping stones to wealth or power are generally disliked, if not actively hated.
Firstly, while this is not a refutation of men disliking one another, that's the whole damn capitalist economy in a nutshell: the use of each other as stepping stones to wealth and power, and those who do it get rewarded and those who don't get punished. Secondly, even in the context of heirarchial relationships, it's a lot more complex than mere dislike: ruthless men are often nearly-worshipped by their subordinates. There is a strong social expectation in us to "obey" a "boss" and when we obey people, we tend to talk ourselves into thinking it's because their orders are good. Thirdly, we're pack animals and tend to arrange ourselves into packs with alphas, betas, etc.

Women who do such things are crucified.
In my working life I've had ruthless, demanding female bosses; caring, compassionate male bosses; ruthless, demanding male bosses; and caring, compassionate female bosses. On the whole, ruthless and demanding is more common regardless of gender, and male gender is more common regardless of personality type. But long-term successful examples of all four types exist.

I agree that there are strong social expectations that women be less aggressive and more compassionate than men. I'm uncertain how much of this is cultural and how much instinctual; I'll take a guess at 25%/75%. But people are free to meet, or not meet, many social expectations; again, as we get to know them as a person, we recognize their complexities.

Yet in the sexual domain, it's somehow acceptable?
I would argue not. We've been pretty critical of this guy, for instance, and we're not even really sure of his full behavior patterns.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:01 PM on June 2 [1 favorite]

I am going to be charitable, and assume that you did not mean to imply that a woman's job is to please men.

I don't think that disinterest in the personal lives of strangers is the same thing as objectification. Although we may not care that our bus driver likes to play piano on the side, we would not treat her like "Bus Driver" if we met her later in a bar. Furthermore, we do not treat all "Bus Drivers" alike - we recognize that some bus drivers are social and talkative, while others are surly and uncommunicative. Furthermore, we recognize, even if we don't particularly care, that our bus drivers may have hopes, dreams, and goals outside of driving a bus.


Like the first link indicates, Sexual attraction is not the same as sexual objectification.

I must mention that I am not talking about cultural objectification, or political, or economic, or political. I am talking specifically about individual objectification. Advertisement companies see you as "Toothpaste Consumer", but an individual advertising executive rarely does. You made my point exactly:

nobody likes to be over-simplified when they want to have some interaction with you that is important to them. People don't like to be objectified by our friends as "guy who gives me lifts and lets me watch his big TV"

Similarly, I don't want to be seen as "tits, ass, vagina, too ugly to fuck" by a complete stranger. I don't see why the "importance of the interaction" matters.


I don't really see what casual sex has to do anything. It's possible to have multiple, casual sex partners without objectifying your sexual partners. Furthermore, I would never argue that some women don't sexually objectify men.

the whole damn capitalist economy in a nutshell: the use of each other as stepping stones to wealth and power, and those who do it get rewarded and those who don't get punished

No wonder I'm not a big fan of capitalism :) This is a pretty cynical view, besides. I think Warren Buffett and John Nash would have something to say about that.


I wonder, does your boss really objectify you? Does she treat you exactly the same as every one of her employees? Or at least, every employee that produces the same work as you do? She's never shown compassion, or interest in your life. She's only interested in how you can get her that next promotion.

We've been pretty critical of this guy

Some of us have. Others of us would like to brush it off with "Seems like a regular straight (?) guy" or "Entirely normal. Default state, in fact."
posted by muddgirl at 6:24 PM on June 2

I am going to be charitable, and assume that you did not mean to imply that a woman's job is to please men.
If taking a view of my comments that isn't completely irrational counts as "charitable", sure.

I don't think that disinterest in the personal lives of strangers is the same thing as objectification.
Your definition of objectification implies that thinking of the stranger as "object" is the beginning, the middle, and the end of the process. Before, throughout, and after the interaction, the woman is thought of as "sex object" and only as "sex object". Of course that's bad.

Although we may not care that our bus driver likes to play piano on the side, we would not treat her like "Bus Driver" if we met her later in a bar.
Now she's "stranger in a bar". Moving a little closer, she's "attractive female stranger in a bar". We might recognize her as our bus driver, which gives us a way to start a conversation, hopefully without appearing to be a jerk who just views her as a sex object, who are, apparently, all too common. If we choose to talk to her, and she chooses to talk to us, we gain more and more information about her (assuming it doesn't stop at "attractive female stranger who doesn't want to talk to me"). She becomes "Alison" rather than "her", she mentions that she likes to play piano, and so on and so forth. We didn't know any of that beforehand. Talking to her--or any person--is filling in the gaps. Adjusting our mental model of her, and our mental model of her mental model of us.

And we of course have the right to "decide" (or have bubble up from the information we gained) whether or not we like her, and whether we think she likes us; and she has the same right.

Where we run into trouble--and this is specifically why prejudices are bad--is when we fail to adjust our mental model to accord with reality, because we'd prefer our mental model as it was. (And I suggest that that kind of behavior is the underlying mechanism of "objectification" as you describe it: a failure to, or disinterest in, or inability to, adjust one's mental model of people.)

Furthermore, we do not treat all "Bus Drivers" alike - we recognize that some bus drivers are social and talkative, while others are surly and uncommunicative. Furthermore, we recognize, even if we don't particularly care, that our bus drivers may have hopes, dreams, and goals outside of driving a bus.
Exactly. The reason why we do not treat them all alike--charitably assuming we are sane and social people--is because they distinguish themselves; in this case, by manner. We adjust our mental models of them (and our models of their models of us).

Advertisement companies see you as "Toothpaste Consumer", but an individual advertising executive rarely does
I disagree. Advertisement companies have no opinion whatsoever. Individual advertising executives form and enact the opinion of the company, heirarchially. One of the major problems with "companies" as a concept is their tendency to enable sociopathic decision-making, by moving responsibility for the decision from the decision-maker, onto the company.

Similarly, I don't want to be seen as "tits, ass, vagina, too ugly to fuck" by a complete stranger.
Everyone, all of the time, measures each other by all kinds of metrics, including the metric of by what metrics we think they measure us. Relative attractiveness is just one. You do this too! You measure people, all of the time, in all kinds of ways, flattering or not, valid or not, and all human beings do the same thing all the time. And you have the right to do it. You have the right to look at a person and judge for yourself whether you find them attractive, whether you find them likeable, whether you are smarter than them, whether they are a danger to you in some way, whether you find their arguments convincing, their manner of expressing themselves entertaining or annoying, etc. You are allowed to make judgments. Even deciding to reserve a judgment 'til more is found out, is a judgment.

I suggest that the immoral act is in (1) unasked, expressing judgments of a person that ordinary politeness requires be reserved for the privacy of one's own mind--such as how attractive a man finds you to be--or at least, sharing that judgment outside of appropriate context; (2) not changing those judgments to fit new information; (3) the combination.

I don't see why the "importance of the interaction" matters.
Because it is the means by which "matters" or "doesn't matter" are decided. If your bus driver is rude and surly to you, it matters a little; if your housemate is rude and surly to you, it matters a lot. If you tried to treat everyone as though everything about them mattered all of the time you'd (a) drive yourself mad; (b) have no friends (because friends are people who matter to us, more than non-friends.)

I don't really see what casual sex has to do anything.
It's the primary context in which the OP's friend interacts with women.

This is a pretty cynical view, besides. I think Warren Buffett and John Nash would have something to say about that.
Both of those men are rich. :)

I wonder, does your boss really objectify you? Does she treat you exactly the same as every one of her employees? Or at least, every employee that produces the same work as you do? She's never shown compassion, or interest in your life. She's only interested in how you can get her that next promotion.
I've worked for organizations that promote exactly this behavior. On a personal level, I've had bosses who have behaved like this. Mostly male. (I think it's a psychological trait more common in males.) It tends to manifest itself as an utter disinterest in consultation, among other things. Even so, it's hard to sustain once the employee distinguishes themselves in some way, good or bad.

Some of us have. Others of us would like to brush it off with "Seems like a regular straight (?) guy" or "Entirely normal. Default state, in fact."
If you think I've been uncritical of the OP's friend--and I draw your attention to my first and last sentences in that comment--then I'd suggest your judgment of me is mistaken.

But that specific comment of mine that you single out, that all men judge and think about women's figures (and behavior, and presentation) all of the time, and alter their behavior accordingly, I stand by.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:33 PM on June 3

It's the primary context in which the OP's friend interacts with women.
Actually, on re-thinking that, I'm not sure this is the case. If the OP is still here ... is it? How does he interact with women generally, as opposed to women he hooks up with for casual sex?

And this is relevant: does he ever hook up with the same woman twice? Repeatedly?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:38 PM on June 3