The Female Gaze

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Legal gaze
We haven't mentioned that one. Or cat gaze

I am the subject of supervisory cat gazes all day long. Sometimes, I even manage to please my feline overlords. Sometimes. They love me even when I do dumb things like dunk my entire body in water or brush them for one stroke too many or sneak tummy rubs while they are asleep.



Legal gaze is rather supervisory, too, come to think of it. It's certainly judgmental. Wait... Cats are lawyers!

 

[SimonDoom]

I am the subject of supervisory cat gazes all day long. Sometimes, I even manage to please my feline overlords. Sometimes. They love me even when I do dumb things like dunk my entire body in water or brush them for one stroke too many or sneak tummy rubs while they are asleep.



Legal gaze is rather supervisory, too, come to think of it. It's certainly judgmental. Wait... Cats are lawyers!

Cat Gaze is subtle. It takes many forms and it can mean many things, unlike Dog Gaze, which is very simple (see movie Up). Sometimes Cat Gaze appears loving and tender, but underlying it is that persistent undertone of "You are pleasing me for the time being, human, but if in the future you fail to do so and the opportunity arises I may kill you in your sleep if the fancy strikes me."

 

[AlinaX]

Cat Gaze can be "I don't trust you not to hurt me, but I expect food and the bed is neutral territory."

 

[Wilson Spalding]

Wow. Helluva topic...

[Re: the female gaze]

What do you think? This has been bugging me so I hope now if bugs you. The bug-baton is handed on

Did I mention "wow"?

Okay, I've heard the phrase but went to brush up on it a bit. Turns out that that the "definition" is more of an interpretation, with some wiggle room in the connotation. There's a truckload of social psychology and precedent attached to it, but trying to nail it down – since it doesn't have an easy, commonly accepted definition – is an exercise in futility. That makes it more of a starting point, and this thread kinda proves that.

Cool.

Thoughts in a nutshell:

1. Quantifying the female gaze is, unfortunately, based on a reaction to the male gaze.
2. The male gaze is sexualized because that's the context we see it, but if we peel back just a couple of layers, it's an analysis leading to a transactional relationship. Most bearers of the gaze won't know that even means, but if you pop the hood, there it is.
3. The female gaze is not the opposite of the male gaze. That's what makes this tricky. There's plenty of females bearing the male gaze. Therein lies a complication: the male gaze is associative but not actually gender-specific. A couch isn't gender-specific either, but some languages insist...
4. The female gaze is more connected to the opposite of a transactional relationship. That "gaze" is looking at the cues of a relational connection; that is, it's trying to discern what's going on inside rather than simply taking the image that presented.
5. In some ways, the female gaze is more invasive. Not via the sexual mechanics, obviously, but in the intent of the subject on which the gaze rests. In other words, to fall back on the stereotype of the gaze: guys take what they're given, women look for motive and intent. In that respect, the female gaze may be a defense mechanism intending to stay a step ahead but... that would require some study to make any such pronouncement.

So... yeah.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Wow. Helluva topic...


Did I mention "wow"?

Okay, I've heard the phrase but went to brush up on it a bit. Turns out that that the "definition" is more of an interpretation, with some wiggle room in the connotation. There's a truckload of social psychology and precedent attached to it, but trying to nail it down – since it doesn't have an easy, commonly accepted definition – is an exercise in futility. That makes it more of a starting point, and this thread kinda proves that.

Cool.

Thoughts in a nutshell:

1. Quantifying the female gaze is, unfortunately, based on a reaction to the male gaze.
2. The male gaze is sexualized because that's the context we see it, but if we peel back just a couple of layers, it's an analysis leading to a transactional relationship. Most bearers of the gaze won't know that even means, but if you pop the hood, there it is.
3. The female gaze is not the opposite of the male gaze. That's what makes this tricky. There's plenty of females bearing the male gaze. Therein lies a complication: the male gaze is associative but not actually gender-specific. A couch isn't gender-specific either, but some languages insist...
4. The female gaze is more connected to the opposite of a transactional relationship. That "gaze" is looking at the cues of a relational connection; that is, it's trying to discern what's going on inside rather than simply taking the image that presented.
5. In some ways, the female gaze is more invasive. Not via the sexual mechanics, obviously, but in the intent of the subject on which the gaze rests. In other words, to fall back on the stereotype of the gaze: guys take what they're given, women look for motive and intent. In that respect, the female gaze may be a defense mechanism intending to stay a step ahead but... that would require some study to make any such pronouncement.

So... yeah.

I think that's a very concise summation of it, and pretty insightful. I do think that whether the female gaze is more invasive is very much a matter of interpretation. The things about it that are the basis for considering it invasive are the things about it that are the basis for labeling it empathetic. Is empathy invasive? It could be viewed that way. Is viewing a woman as an object that can provide satisfaction invasive? It can be viewed that way, or it could be viewed as so impersonal that the woman doesn't matter at all. I'm not sure "invasive" really helps much with trying to figure it out.

The idea that guys take what they're given is one I've often heard. I'm not sure that's really complete, though. I understand it to mean guys often take things at face value without trying to tease out whatever's hidden beneath the surface. That much makes sense, although with the usual caveats that it depends on the guy and the circumstances. But I think guys actually add to what they're given. In many cases, they seem to add a layer colored by what they want to see. They see a pretty woman in a revealing dress, and a lot of guys are already making a bunch of assumptions that go far beyond what they've been given to work with.

Everyone adds to what they see. Everyone interprets what they see, and all approaches are prone to errors. I think what we're calling male gaze often imposes its own lens whereas what we're calling female gaze is often about finding the subject's lens. Maybe invasively. I'm not sure. Having been guilty of a sudden inquisition into something my husband said three weeks ago in casual passing and trying to relate it to something he said two years ago over dinner, then cross-referencing it with the expression on his face when he was pumping gas the other day, I cannot completely and credibly deny the charge of invasiveness. But, damn, it's creepy-invasive when guys look at women like they're animated blowup dolls. That's not every guy. It's an extreme example that I'm using to explain that there are probably different types of being invasive, and what we find invasive is also likely a matter of the gaze we're applying.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think that's a very concise summation of it, and pretty insightful.

Dang, Nyx, you stole my words.

Wilson's contribution is a great add-on to the discussion, and the notion of invasiveness an intriguing one. A nice counterbalance to the overly simplified, "Men, they're all just pervs at heart, stop looking" - "Women, put away your scalpels." Whoa!

I can't recall if it's in a story or in a private email where I alluded to J Alfred Prufrock lying on a table, eviscerated by her look. In a story, I think - possibly along with a reference to Leonard Cohen, who also knew a thing or two about gaze.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Dang, Nyx, you stole my words.

Wilson's contribution is a great add-on to the discussion, and the notion of invasiveness an intriguing one. A nice counterbalance to the overly simplified, "Men, they're all just pervs at heart, stop looking" - "Women, put away your scalpels." Whoa!

I can't recall if it's in a story or in a private email where I alluded to J Alfred Prufrock lying on a table, eviscerated by her look. In a story, I think - possibly along with a reference to Leonard Cohen, who also knew a thing or two about gaze.

But we need the scalpels to know what's in your hearts!

 

[AlexBailey]

Some Kind Of Wonderful

The classic movie from 1987 could be a case-study on 'gaze'.

I've heard, and been in many conversations about 'Some Kind Of Wonderfu'l and what effect it had on many different persuasions of queer folk.

Mary Stewart Masterson's character, 'Watts,' was an archetype tomboy who many of my lesbian friends identified as the first female that they crushed on. She certainly made an impression on me. These days the movie may seem cliche, but I would consider it to be one of the movies that made the formula cliche -- at least for many of my generation.


The tomboy character tries to play the opposite-sex best-friend to a guy she has fallen for. The guy-friend, 'Keith' (played by Eric Stoltz) is clueless to her affections. He seeks the archetype pretty-popular girl, (Lea Thompson) for all the wrong reasons. He eventually is disillusioned and finally sees the 'right choice' right in front of him.

This thread has inspired me to watch it again, paying special attention to how Keith's 'gaze' shifts.

 

[AlexBailey]

Some Kind Of Wonderful

The classic movie from 1987 could be a case-study on 'gaze'.

I've heard, and been in many conversations about 'Some Kind Of Wonderfu'l and what effect it had on many different persuasions of queer folk.

Mary Stewart Masterson's character, 'Watts,' is an archetypal tomboy who many of my lesbian friends identify as the first female that they crushed on. She certainly made an impression on me. These days the movie may seem cliche, but I would consider it to be one of the movies that made the formula so familiar -- at least for many of my generation.


The tomboy character tries to play the opposite-sex best-friend to a guy she has fallen for. The guy-friend, 'Keith' (played by Eric Stoltz) is clueless to her affections. He seeks the archetype pretty-popular girl, (Lea Thompson) for all the wrong reasons. He eventually is disillusioned and finally sees the 'right choice' right in front of him.

This thread has inspired me to watch it again, paying special attention to how Keith's 'gaze' shifts.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The tomboy character tries to play the opposite-sex best-friend to a guy she has fallen for. The guy-friend, 'Keith' (played by Eric Stoltz) is clueless to her affections. He seeks the archetype pretty-popular girl, (Lea Thompson) for all the wrong reasons. He eventually is disillusioned and finally sees the 'right choice' right in front of him.

This thread has inspired me to watch it again, paying special attention to how Keith's 'gaze' shifts.

A gorgeous little movie, one of my favourites from that era. Watts... ooooo yes!

 

[ElectricBlue]

But we need the scalpels to know what's in your hearts!

You, Madame, would leave me no blood.

But wait, what - "hearts"? Ah, you're talking about men in the plural, not man in the singular.

I thought Doctor Who had dropped by for a moment. In time.

 

[Wilson Spalding]

The Gaze

Aww, thanks you two!

But we need the scalpels to know what's in your hearts!

I've heard the quickest way to a man's heart is between the 4th and 5th ribs...

Oh, also:

Having been guilty of a sudden inquisition into something my husband said three weeks ago in casual passing and trying to relate it to something he said two years ago over dinner, then cross-referencing it with the expression on his face when he was pumping gas the other day, I cannot completely and credibly deny the charge of invasiveness.

Ha!

And yes, whether it's focused empathic inquiry or just behavioral deduction, it plays into archetypes (and stereotypes) about how connected people are to their emotions. It's not that men can't or don't operate at the level, it's that the average guy is never taught to access it, then generally avoids because it's intense and overwhelming and what little conscious-level control they have gets overwhelmed.

It's largely why guys need liquid courage to do something that requires some level of emotional commitment, whether that's sky diving, asking a girl to dance, or for the truly crazy, asking a girl to marry him.

The flip side, guys taking what they're given, is just the corollary. A starting point, if you will.

But, damn, it's creepy-invasive when guys look at women like they're animated blowup dolls. That's not every guy. It's an extreme example that I'm using to explain that there are probably different types of being invasive, and what we find invasive is also likely a matter of the gaze we're applying.

<sigh>

Yeah, I can only imagine. The more unfortunate part of a transactional analysis is that it's not looking at the person holistically, only the actual contact points and ultimately what they'll take away from the experience. In that case, they're hoping to take away an endorphin/adrenaline rush (an orgasm).

That "look" is symptomatic of not dipping deep enough into the emotion, and what shows in that expression is a very shallow reflection of the "needs" that are driving that analysis. It's so disconnected that it borders on sociopathy, reinforcing that it really is dehumanizing. For better or worse, unfortunately, it's also fairly natural in a world where men are undisciplined with emotional control. As the stereotypes go, it averages all or nothing.

On a Completely Unrelated Note...

Speaking of a sudden inquisition into something someone's husband said three weeks ago in casual passing... I'd love to see a female Sherlock Holmes forensically pick people apart. That would be an interesting read... or a show.

Who would be a good female Benedict Cumberbatch?

 

[Wilson Spalding]

You, Madame, would leave me no blood.

But wait, what - "hearts"? Ah, you're talking about men in the plural, not man in the singular.

I thought Doctor Who had dropped by for a moment. In time.

A Doctor reference?
Fantastic!

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

You, Madame, would leave me no blood.

But wait, what - "hearts"? Ah, you're talking about men in the plural, not man in the singular.

I thought Doctor Who had dropped by for a moment. In time.

To discover what was in the Doctor's heart, I would have a little chat with the TARDIS. Just us girls. Nah... wouldn't be necessary. The Doctor always lies, and what's more revealing than a lie?

 

[ElectricBlue]

To discover what was in the Doctor's heart, I would have a little chat with the TARDIS. Just us girls. Nah... wouldn't be necessary. The Doctor always lies, and what's more revealing than a lie?

There is a superb Doctor Who episode, Matt Smith era, where Suranne Jones is Idris, the TARDIS incarnate. Several Christmases came at once with that one, having been a Doctor Who nut since the Patrick Troughton era and having a bit of a crush on Suranne Jones since Scott and Bailey.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

On a Completely Unrelated Note...

Speaking of a sudden inquisition into something someone's husband said three weeks ago in casual passing... I'd love to see a female Sherlock Holmes forensically pick people apart. That would be an interesting read... or a show.

Who would be a good female Benedict Cumberbatch?

It would be fascinating to see how the creator of such an adaptation handled Holmes' difficulty with emotional content. Would they go the route taken with the lead character in Bones? I think it might be more interesting if, instead of having difficulty understanding emotional content, the female Holmes found it uncomfortably intimate and tended to eschew intuition in favor of objective deduction. In Sherlock, the interpretation of Holmes seems to lean in this direction.

Natalie Dormer, who plays Moriarty in Elementary, might be an interesting choice.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

There is a superb Doctor Who episode, Matt Smith era, where Suranne Jones is Idris, the TARDIS incarnate. Several Christmases came at once with that one, having been a Doctor Who nut since the Patrick Troughton era and having a bit of a crush on Suranne Jones since Scott and Bailey.

That's the one I was thinking of. She's delightfully mad.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Natalie Dormer, who plays Moriarty in Elementary, might be an interesting choice.

And the collected evil entities in the latest Penny Dreadful.

 

[SimonDoom]

. I'd love to see a female Sherlock Holmes forensically pick people apart. That would be an interesting read... or a show.

Who would be a good female Benedict Cumberbatch?

How about Eva Green? She's beautiful but in a somewhat quirky way. I'd watch that. My gaze would be quite different from what it is watching Benedict Cumberbatch.

 

[AlinaX]

That's the one I was thinking of. She's delightfully mad.

Loved that episode...

 

[AlexBailey]

A gorgeous little movie, one of my favourites from that era. Watts... ooooo yes!

Ooh, and don't forget that Mary Stewart Masterson ('Watts' from Some Kind Of Wonderful) also played 'Idgey' for Fried Green Tomatoes At The Whistlestop Cafe -- a cinematic case study on the 'female on female' gaze. Yum.

 

[stickygirl]

Thoughts in a nutshell:

1. Quantifying the female gaze is, unfortunately, based on a reaction to the male gaze.
2. The male gaze is sexualized because that's the context we see it, but if we peel back just a couple of layers, it's an analysis leading to a transactional relationship. Most bearers of the gaze won't know that even means, but if you pop the hood, there it is.
3. The female gaze is not the opposite of the male gaze. That's what makes this tricky. There's plenty of females bearing the male gaze. Therein lies a complication: the male gaze is associative but not actually gender-specific. A couch isn't gender-specific either, but some languages insist...
4. The female gaze is more connected to the opposite of a transactional relationship. That "gaze" is looking at the cues of a relational connection; that is, it's trying to discern what's going on inside rather than simply taking the image that presented.
5. In some ways, the female gaze is more invasive. Not via the sexual mechanics, obviously, but in the intent of the subject on which the gaze rests. In other words, to fall back on the stereotype of the gaze: guys take what they're given, women look for motive and intent. In that respect, the female gaze may be a defense mechanism intending to stay a step ahead but... that would require some study to make any such pronouncement.

Thanks for your new summary. If I may, I'll counter your list with my own:
1. The female gaze does not require a male gaze to exist, like opposite legs. Male gaze existed for most of the years of cinema and stood on its own.
2. The male gaze is sexualized <STOP>. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘an analysis leading to a transactional relationship’ unless you mean pimping and prostitution. ‘Analysis’? I suspect you meant something else.
3. We can't help but be deflected by its title, because as has been discussed, it comes with baggage that suggests female gaze is gender specific. Empathetic gaze is a more accurate expression, but not as snappy. Male gaze is gender specific despite your suggestion that 'plenty of women have male gaze' eg a woman may admit to thinking a guy looks buff, but she's unlikely keep a list of her top ten on her phone. The expression coined by Mulvey's 1970s theory was based on feminist theory and psychoanalysis and from working within the industry for a number of years.
4. yup, pretty much
5. In what way can a visual conversation that considers the emotions of actors, director, writer and audience be invasive? Every individual witnessing such a film has the freedom to bring their own personal interpretation, which is the whole point: it becomes a more powerful means of story telling than objectifying cinema following a formula. It's not a defensive trick, it embraces. Your suspicion that women need intent and motive is not helpful.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Some thoughts from an object...

Several times in my life, I have worked as an "adult entertainer", an "exotic dancer", an "ecdysiast"...you know, a stripper. Other than porn performers, I don't think there is any group as objectified by the male gaze.

When I first began dancing, I was, to put it bluntly, pretty fucked up. I was addicted to several prescription drugs and running through a long string of unstable, often abusive, relationships. I had suffered a miscarriage and had twice been hospitalized with drug overdoses. Needless to say, my self esteem was virtually non-existent. Getting a gig in a strip club radically changed my life, at least temporarily. Of course, until I wrestled the demons of my addiction, ultimate failure was inevitable.

When I started dancing, I was terrible at it, but I rapidly improved, and before long I was making more money than I could have imagined. I was able to get my own apartment and buy a used car, and most importantly, not have to rely on some man or another just to have a roof over my head and food in my belly. That certainly plays into the topic of how I felt when I was dancing, but I am going to try to set it aside for the sake of this discussion, and focus just on the issue of male gaze. But it is obviously a related issue.

Naturally, I was very self conscious at first, but as I gained confidence, that fell away and before long I thought nothing of dancing nearly naked for public viewing. Coaxing the objectifying male gaze was not an unwanted aspect of the job, it was the whole point. Most men are not going to slip a bill in your thong if they see you as someone's daughter, someone's wife or girlfriend. Either they see you as just a hot body, or they create an imaginary dream girl to project on to you. But they don't see you. They don't want to see you, although they often think they do.

Dancers almost always dance using a stage name, for a number of very good reasons. One that I found was that, when I entered the club, I became another person. That wasn't me on stage or in the VIP room, it was a character I played. Yet, I knew that every aspect of that character came from within me, and when I turned into her, I felt great. I felt sexy, confident, empowered. I wouldn't say that I had contempt for my customers, but I did feel superior to them. I felt that I was the one using them. That's not unusual. The dressing room talk was often derisive about the clientele, talking about them as marks to be taken for all you could get from them.

I relished the thought that many of them would go home and masturbate, or even have sex with their wives or girlfriends, while thinking about me. I craved their gaze.Their gaze meant money in my pocket, and money meant independence, self reliance, power. (Unfortunately, it also meant more money for drugs, but that's another issue.) I may have been an object to them, but I was a valued object, and honesty compels me to say that, until my addictions screwed the whole thing up, I was able to turn the male gaze to my benefit.

A few years later, after a lot of life altering experiences I spent some time dancing again. (Yes, I know that some of you already know the story. Thanks.)

I got back into it as a financial expediency, when money was tight. The first time I went back, I didn't stick with it long, because I felt the environment threatened my recovery.

I got married, started going to school, and my life was in a much better place, a radically better place, than it had ever been before. My husband knew I had been a dancer, and was excited by the fact. Mostly to please him, we went to a few amateur nights together. We had a lot of fun, and it was a more high end club than I had been at before, so I took a part time gig there dancing a few nights a week, just to help put some money in the bank (I am going to school, he is saving up to open his own business).

The thing is, this time didn't feel like it had before. It wasn't a bad experience, just a hollow one. I still liked the feeling of sexiness I got when I danced, and in a physical sense, it's enjoyable, like a fun workout, but I didn't get the same sense of empowerment. Maybe because I didn't need it. Maybe because I'm older, or more "woke". Or clean and sober. But there didn't seem to be any power in the gaze of the men watching me. Maybe that's because I had closed the power/status gap between them and me. But if there gaze held no power, I could take no satisfaction in turning it back toward them.

Anyway, I danced for awhile. Paid some bills and made some money to go toward paying for my classes. It's not likely I'll do it again.

The hubs likes the lap dances, though. I'll keep him happy.

 

[SimonDoom]

Some thoughts from an object...

Several times in my life, I have worked as an "adult entertainer", an "exotic dancer", an "ecdysiast"...you know, a stripper. Other than porn performers, I don't think there is any group as objectified by the male gaze.

When I first began dancing, I was, to put it bluntly, pretty fucked up. I was addicted to several prescription drugs and running through a long string of unstable, often abusive, relationships. I had suffered a miscarriage and had twice been hospitalized with drug overdoses. Needless to say, my self esteem was virtually non-existent. Getting a gig in a strip club radically changed my life, at least temporarily. Of course, until I wrestled the demons of my addiction, ultimate failure was inevitable.

When I started dancing, I was terrible at it, but I rapidly improved, and before long I was making more money than I could have imagined. I was able to get my own apartment and buy a used car, and most importantly, not have to rely on some man or another just to have a roof over my head and food in my belly. That certainly plays into the topic of how I felt when I was dancing, but I am going to try to set it aside for the sake of this discussion, and focus just on the issue of male gaze. But it is obviously a related issue.

Naturally, I was very self conscious at first, but as I gained confidence, that fell away and before long I thought nothing of dancing nearly naked for public viewing. Coaxing the objectifying male gaze was not an unwanted aspect of the job, it was the whole point. Most men are not going to slip a bill in your thong if they see you as someone's daughter, someone's wife or girlfriend. Either they see you as just a hot body, or they create an imaginary dream girl to project on to you. But they don't see you. They don't want to see you, although they often think they do.

Dancers almost always dance using a stage name, for a number of very good reasons. One that I found was that, when I entered the club, I became another person. That wasn't me on stage or in the VIP room, it was a character I played. Yet, I knew that every aspect of that character came from within me, and when I turned into her, I felt great. I felt sexy, confident, empowered. I wouldn't say that I had contempt for my customers, but I did feel superior to them. I felt that I was the one using them. That's not unusual. The dressing room talk was often derisive about the clientele, talking about them as marks to be taken for all you could get from them.

I relished the thought that many of them would go home and masturbate, or even have sex with their wives or girlfriends, while thinking about me. I craved their gaze.Their gaze meant money in my pocket, and money meant independence, self reliance, power. (Unfortunately, it also meant more money for drugs, but that's another issue.) I may have been an object to them, but I was a valued object, and honesty compels me to say that, until my addictions screwed the whole thing up, I was able to turn the male gaze to my benefit.

A few years later, after a lot of life altering experiences I spent some time dancing again. (Yes, I know that some of you already know the story. Thanks.)

I got back into it as a financial expediency, when money was tight. The first time I went back, I didn't stick with it long, because I felt the environment threatened my recovery.

I got married, started going to school, and my life was in a much better place, a radically better place, than it had ever been before. My husband knew I had been a dancer, and was excited by the fact. Mostly to please him, we went to a few amateur nights together. We had a lot of fun, and it was a more high end club than I had been at before, so I took a part time gig there dancing a few nights a week, just to help put some money in the bank (I am going to school, he is saving up to open his own business).

The thing is, this time didn't feel like it had before. It wasn't a bad experience, just a hollow one. I still liked the feeling of sexiness I got when I danced, and in a physical sense, it's enjoyable, like a fun workout, but I didn't get the same sense of empowerment. Maybe because I didn't need it. Maybe because I'm older, or more "woke". Or clean and sober. But there didn't seem to be any power in the gaze of the men watching me. Maybe that's because I had closed the power/status gap between them and me. But if there gaze held no power, I could take no satisfaction in turning it back toward them.

Anyway, I danced for awhile. Paid some bills and made some money to go toward paying for my classes. It's not likely I'll do it again.

The hubs likes the lap dances, though. I'll keep him happy.

This is very interesting, Melissa, and very informative on the subject. I thought this was interesting:
"They don't want to see you, although they often think they do."

I wonder if this should be regarded as an element of the male gaze. Perhaps part of it is that men go to lengths to convince themselves that it's more empathetic or complex than it is.

 

[MelissaBaby]

This is very interesting, Melissa, and very informative on the subject. I thought this was interesting:
"They don't want to see you, although they often think they do."

I wonder if this should be regarded as an element of the male gaze. Perhaps part of it is that men go to lengths to convince themselves that it's more empathetic or complex than it is.

I think that any gaze includes assumptions about its object. Those assumptions create an....essence(?)...of the object. You look at an apple and you imbue it with qualities of appleness, a taste, a texture.

When it's a person, obviously, it's much more complicated. You know, strippers can spend as much time talking to clients as dancing. Some of them made the assumption that because you were dancing, you were a slut, up for anything sexual. But it was just as common for them to assume you were a good girl who had just taken a wrong path. The rarest assumption was that it was just your job, one of the few where a woman without inherited advantages or an advanced education could make a lot of money.

They create a patchwork of assumptions, that you would just love to fuck them, or that you are pining for a gallant hero to rescue you, and that becomes the filter through which they see you.