The Objectification Of Women
[quote=Urban Dictionary]decolletage. Décolletage is a plunging neckline on a woman's dress. Without decolletage, there would be no cleavage. This French word comes from a verb meaning “expose the neck,” and that's exactly what décolletage does: it's a low neckline on a woman's dress or shirt.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]A miniskirt (sometimes hyphenated as mini-skirt, separated as mini skirt, or sometimes shortened to simply mini) is a skirt with its hemline well above the knees, generally at mid-thigh level, normally no longer than 10 cm (4 in) below the buttocks;[1] and a dresswith such a hemline is called a minidress or a miniskirt dress. A micro-miniskirt or microskirt is a miniskirt with its hemline at the upper thigh, at or just below crotch or underwear level.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person, or sometimes an animal, as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others.[/quote]
I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such.
Burqa...
:chin:
[quote=Wikipedia]A miniskirt (sometimes hyphenated as mini-skirt, separated as mini skirt, or sometimes shortened to simply mini) is a skirt with its hemline well above the knees, generally at mid-thigh level, normally no longer than 10 cm (4 in) below the buttocks;[1] and a dresswith such a hemline is called a minidress or a miniskirt dress. A micro-miniskirt or microskirt is a miniskirt with its hemline at the upper thigh, at or just below crotch or underwear level.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person, or sometimes an animal, as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others.[/quote]
I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such.
Burqa...
:chin:
Comments (417)
Wanting to look good is not the same as wanting to be treated as an object.
The types of attire I mentioned are, well, designed to expose or, better put, are sexually suggestive - the very thing that is the basis of men taking them as objects (of sex).
Women want to have it both ways - make men desire them as objects (of sex) but not make men think of them as objects (of sex). Either there's a very deep mystery here that begs thorough investigation or women are crazy.
Indeed, but the heart of the issue is women want to look good in a way that hints of a probably subconscious desire to become objects of mens' desire.
You're equivocating. Wanting to be an "object of desire" in this sense is wanting to be desirable. That's not the same as wanting to be treating as an object.
Fer fuck's sake.
Not all women are the same. Some may not understand themselves. Understanding women is no different than understanding anyone else on the fucking planet, assuming that they understand themselves. Talk to them, and listen to what they say. As is the case with any and all honest and successful efforts to understand another's philosophical position here on these forums...
Grant their terms!
It's no different, in principle, than understanding Black Lives Matter!!!
Wanting to be an "object of desire" is tantamount to wanting to be "treated as an object."
No it isn't. When I dress to look good I don't want to be treated as a disposable dildo. I certainly want to attract women but to think that that amounts to the desire to be objectified is patently false.
Really? How do clothing businesses sustain themselves if not for their products selling like hot cakes? These products include the types I mentioned - with plunging necklines and rising hemlines.
What exactly do you mean by "I dress to look good?
I dress to increase my sex appeal.
Probably, but not only objects of desire. I think the main issue is men deriving only sexual value from women.
Not a good start.
A woman can walk around naked and not want to be treated as just a sex object, partner, or what have you.
You are not realizing that someone can want to look appealing and want to be viewed as that AND so much more.
This, a billion times. Imagine a guy's potential on every matter in his life being reduced to the sexiness of his chest because he once wore an open shirt on holiday. Once someone's caught your eye, surely you talk to them and stuff, get to know them, know their likes and dislikes, their skills and hobbies, their politics, the kinds of music they like, decide if you like them as a person. It seems weird to me that so many men seem to continue, after all that, to think of a particular woman as little more than "the tits I'm currently interested in."
But I think the stuff I enumerated... guys like that, it washes over them somehow. They probably don't ever really get to know the woman they like. Sucks to be them, really.
Yeah... some around here say stuff that smacks of "they had it coming to them" when dressed a certain way and drunk... after being raped. Pathetic.
A man who appears vulnerable and is drunk out of his mind may be robbed and killed at a much greater chance. While I wouldn't say he had it coming to him, he did set the table, so to speak. The world we live in is not a masterpiece across every corner. Fortune favors the prepared.
After all, wouldn't the choice for such dress imply we seek to exchange the enticement of the other for whatever attention, drinks, sexual favors. One is using their body as currency to get what it is they want.
Of course, wanting to look 'good' and wanting to look 'sexy' aren't necessarily one and the same.
I'm in no way claiming "they had it coming" but I'm bothered by how women dress in ways that seem to attract all the wrong kind of attention to themselves and then seem offended by it.
What exactly is the function of clothing? A few possibilities spring to mind: to protect yourself from the elements - low necklines and miniskirts do all but that; for modesty - low necklines and miniskirts are definitely not about modesty. What other purpose(s) do clothes have I wonder?
It seems that womens' apparel are a paradox for they're defined as clothes but fail to fulfill any of its functions. In fact, as per the view I'm expressing here, they're anti-clothes.
I disagree with Michael on this: I think you're right. To find someone physically attractive just is to objectify them.
The problem is in treating or viewing someone only as an object, which is probably the sense in which "objectification" is used when described as a problem. One can dress with the knowledge that one will be objectified, but one ought to be able to expect to be treated as a person as well.
It's like Kant's ethics. It's not that you can never treat someone as a means, but that you ought never treat someone as nothing but that.
Actually, a crowbar separation needs to be made between two distinct things, although I think creativesoul covered it. When women complain about sexual objectification, they usual mean all of the time, in every situation. I don't think they typically mean e.g. "during the lapdance I was giving".
However, I did have a fascinating conversation with a feminist once who explained that men should never hit on women, that it was misogynistic. I pointed out the obvious effect this would have on the survival of the species, so she conceded that it would be fine if a man she fancied hit on her, but "ugly" men should not. I asked how either man could know if she fancied them without approaching her. Her response was: "They should just know."
Now that woman was a nutcase, but there are plenty of nutcases, maybe enough that what you're talking about is a woman dressing sexually provocatively but calling out men she doesn't like on looking at her as a sexual object there and then?
The problem here is that men tend to think it must be about them. And yes maybe the first woman to wear a miniskirt wanted to be noticed in that way, but then miniskirts became fashionable, and women who are guided by fashion were apt to wear them. It's not a "Can you guess what I've got up here", it's just fitting in. There's also one-upmanship to consider as well. If revealing clothes become fashionable, then more revealing clothes become higher status.
That makes perfect sense.
Red and Black, safe for Jack. (Scarlet King Snake)
Red and Yellow, will kill a fellow. (Coral Snake)
A Coral Snake wouldn't want to be mistaken for a Scarlet King Snake but the converse is false.
:ok:
Eric Berne identified this as a harmless form of the game of Rapo. A woman dresses provocatively.I f you look, you lose.
More advanced forms of this game, of course, have put men in prison or gotten them lynched.
http://www.ericberne.com/games-people-play/rapo/
Regarding the last claim:I'd rather be lucky than good, because when the two meet, the lucky one wins, or so they say. However, I am inclined to agree that luck is when preparation meets opportunity, or at least one can hedge one's own bets for more good luck to happen.
To the rest...
Sure, there are people in this world who will harm others for no good reason, and such people often look for victims by looking for those who are the easiest to take advantage of. One can increase their chances of not being taken advantage of - when possible - by taking the necessary precautions. However, this discussion is about seeing a woman, first and foremost, as a sexually desirable thing/object. With that in mind, there's nothing wrong with a woman wearing whatever she wants to wear, no matter how scantily clad that attire may be. Even if it is meant to attract the attention of men/women, even if it highlights all the parts of her that are sexually desirable, even if she wears it as a means to be noticed, it does not mean that that is all that that woman want's to achieve by wearing it.
It certainly does not warrant looking at her as only sexually desirable. It certainly does not warrant "cat calling". It certainly does warrant some sort of attention being given to the outfit itself. The actual reasons that a woman may wear some 'sexually provocative" outfit are wide ranging and specific to the individual. Some may want sexual attention. Some may not, but rather do it for themselves... because they think that they look good or sexy or whatever.
There is much more to a person(women included) than just their sexual aspects...
Good. Just be aware that many who do say that pave the way for doing so by saying things like you've been saying.
The problem is the wrong kinds of attention... not who's being paid the wrong kinds of attention to and for whatever reason those attention givers rationalize their own actions to themselves...
"Nice ass!"
"Fuck off you jerk!"
"What else did she expect wearing clothes that exposed her butt cheeks?"
Everything, including everyone, is an object. But at least some objects are also subjects, persons, moral agents and patients, with thoughts and feelings, who matter as ends in themselves, not just as means to someone else's ends. To "objectify" someone isn't merely to affirm their objecthood, it's to deny their personhood.
In this specific case, someone (including the woman herself) can treat a woman as an object of sexual desire, without treating her as merely an object, without denying her personhood; and doing that is not objectification.
~Freddy Zarathustra
Quoting TheMadFool
What's wrong with that? Just because you - many (most?) hetero-males - can't handle that, doesn't entail it's wrong or that a woman shouldn't have her dawgs & her dignity too. :smirk:
"Deep mystery"? None whatsoever. The allure of the power (à la will to power) of allure - desire that desires to be desired! :yum: (A. Honneth?) And yeah, as every woman can attest: they are crazy. It's not either-or, Fool. Also: "Women are crazy because men are stupid" about women, Thus Spoke George Carlin!
I've never been able to really live with them or without them. A flâneur's 'Pygmalion' all my days & nights, my promiscuous 'gaze' transfigures lusty flesh into lewd statuary - theirs and mine! - and back again. I've learned it's not what you objectify, my man, but, as in all things, (also) how you do it to it.
"All happiness or unhappiness solely depends upon the quality of the object to which we are attached by love." ~Benny Spinoza
:death: :flower:
The things I've been saying are meant as more of an explanation than as a justification for the objectitication of women (by men). Do you see any problems with that?
Quoting Gregory
:point: Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
What does the underlined bit imply? In other words, if it were a premise what does it entail?
"Don't forget the whip!" :sweat:
:point: 'We're free to objectify ourselves without licensing you to objectify us.'
(Re: Coopting social-sexual alienation ... the way we blacks coopt racial slurs in order to reclaim (some of the) power to hurt from racists).
:love:
So, please leave men out of the “The Objectification Of Women” equation. We’ve got nothing to do with it.
Really insightful point, made me think. Would you expect this coopting to disappear if racism/sexism disappeared?
I'm going to play detective here and the first thing I notice is despite your highly favorable point of view on women on this issue, you still couldn't avoid using a decidedly negative phrase "double standards". What would you think of a person being showered with accolades by an ardent supporter and you find this hapless fan couldn't avoid using the term "jerk"? If the best of your supporters must end up, is forced to, say something bad about you, shouldn't you be worried?
Quoting 180 Proof
How does one objectify oneself?
Quoting Hot Potato
Women clothe themselves a particular way for a wide range of reasons, including (but not confined to): competing with other women for social or political status, for men’s (or a particular man’s) attention, for any attention at all; pleasing a particular man, men in general, her friends, her family members or social group, her boss, OR herself; as well as for comfort, for pure functionality, or to help her feel like more than part of the furniture, a slave, a piece of dirt, invisible or whatever she happens to have been feeling like too much lately.
Here’s a tip: before making generalised assumptions about a woman’s intention in wearing a low-cut neckline or a mini-skirt, you could take the time to ASK her if there’s a particular reason why she wore that outfit today - and then LISTEN to what she has to say. She might be surprised that someone took the trouble to recognise a thinking, feeling person with agency underneath the fabric, skin and shape, but aside from ‘I don’t know’, you will probably never get the same response twice.
Because they happen to be human beings, as diverse and unpredictable in their thinking, knowledge and experiences as men, despite how they look. Surprise.
If women (in general) were individualistic then asking them would be good advice. But women are flock creatures, who not only follow the trend found in magazines and adapted by their friends but will also tell you, "I dress for myself" which cannot be relied upon by any means what-so-ever. If you can be a silly-cone boob, fake eyelash, plucked and tattooed eyebrow, outrageously coloured eye-shadow, plastic fingernails, bright lipstick, apologist then help yourself. But tell me .... how do you justify high-heeled shoes that are (for all purposes) voluntary stumble-handicaps?
Quoting Hot Potato
If I must say something in addition to the above then it's this: I agree with @180 Proof that women have the right to do anything with their bodies - dress in whatever way they wish included - and being scantily clad is not an invitation for all men to hit on them but, on most occasions, this kind of behavior is aimed specifically at a certain range of "clients" - men whom they desire and wish to forge a relationship with. I sympathize with women because they're like snipers, bringing their "big guns" to bear on a particular (kind of) guy, but they're forced to blow their cover and so become targets of "unwanted attention" from the "enemy".
Women in general are individuals who can and do think for themselves, and any suggestion that they are not is ridiculous. If some women choose to exaggerate certain features of their appearance because they can, that’s their choice, and not necessarily ‘flock’ behaviour. If they do so for someone else’s benefit, that is also their own choice, and no concern of yours. Men can be just as much slaves to trends or social pressure as women. It may not be so much in appearance as in their words and behaviour, but these can also have far more serious consequences than a twisted ankle or unwanted attention.
I don’t always dress for myself, but I find that it’s often a legitimate answer. I wear three-inch heels because I like the extra height they give me (I’m 5’3”), I like how much smaller my size 8 feet look in them, and I like the change in overall subjective experience they offer me: between a casual day, and a day in the office or a night out. Personally, though, if they’re not comfortable enough to wear all day/night, they’re not practical. But that’s just me: I don’t like to complicate things, and I’m not a details person - I don’t do fake eyelashes or plastic fingernails, and I can go for weeks without shaving my legs, but I do like to be creative with colour and shape.
1. We are discussing "their choices" and how they come by those choices. That's what this discussion is all about.
2. It most certainly is "my concern" because (hello?) that's what this discussion is all about.
The more I consider, the more it appears that objectification is for most people the way they treat each other most of the time. And the way we treat ourselves. It has become normal.
So this is a firmer statement of intent than the original question, which asked to resolve a perceived discrepancy between how women describe their clothing choices and how some of those clothing choices suggest a more universal intent.
Out of interest, is this a binary phenomenon in your mind? When a woman wears a miniskirt to a bar, she's definitely straight and looking to get hit on by a man, correct? And if she wears a microskirt, same is surely true. If she wears a floor-length skirt, she wants to be left alone? What about a knee-length skirt? Is that still a deliberate provocation as it was to Cole Porter, or does that put her in the leave-me-alone category? Or is it a continuum: the shorter the skirt, the more the woman wants to be hit on, so a knee-length skirt denotes being open to a little flirtation with a small chance of sex, while a microskirt denotes an anybody-anytime-right-here-on-the-counter intent?
:up:
Well, you don't seem to need my help; you've single-handedly come up with a near-scientific hypothesis on the issue. I appreciate your effort and ingenuity but, if you must know, I'd let time be the judge. I guess it's going to be a long wait...
To be honest, I’m not convinced that women who rail against objectification by men, and women who dress specifically to be hit on - even by only certain types of men - are the same individuals. My issue with your OP was that it presumes they are.
Having said that, a woman should be free to show some skin without being held responsible for ‘sending the wrong signals’ to men in whom she has no interest. If you hit on a woman and she brushes you off, the humiliation you might feel is not her fault for ‘putting it out there’. Even if her intention is to be noticed, she’s just as free to be choosy as if she had dressed modestly.
The purpose of an object’s particular feature is presumed to be the anticipated value for the observer, and no-one need question the truth of this. The purpose of an agent’s particular behaviour is a different story.
Yeah, I apologise for the ridiculous tone of the questions. In my defense, they are logical questions to ask given the assumption they ridiculed.
I would say, and I don't think this is something you'll accept: time is judging already. The very assumption -- that a woman wears e.g. a miniskirt because she wants men to sexually solicit her -- that gives rise to these mysteries is, quite rightly, putting some of its extreme proponents in prison or firing them from their jobs. There will be a time when every police officer who laughs off a miniskirted woman complaining about sexual assault will be sacked, maybe even a time when they couldn't get hired in the first place. Society has inherited such individuals and the protectionism around them from a more primitive time in which straight white men had the power to out-group just about everybody. It doesn't tolerate them though, that is the trend already. Time has judged, is judging, and will judge us further in retrospect.That's a third grounds you have to reject your own assumption.
Quoting Possibility
Further, if three of your mates have hit on a woman and she's brushed them off with diminishing temper, don't be a dick by trying your luck. There's a very strong signal she's sending out: leave me alone! Pointing at her plunging neckline and pretending that's the only signal that matters is not a defence. You know what you're doing, and you know your rationalisation is BS.
Like it'd be some epic lifelong journey to find some or something! :rofl:
On that note, sure there are fish in the ocean.
People, especially young ones, mentally and otherwise, crave to be desired. Especially when one's early home life did not facilitate this. It's natural.
Somewhat off topic but just to say so, my views on modesty in attire are correlated to what is conducive to a strong social fabric. Married/non-single women don't need to be on Instagram or in public bearing just about it all for the world to see. It's annoying. More poignantly, modest dress is required in the workplace or productivity will suffer. That is a fact.
None of this was my point however, my point is, in a world where men do kill other men and rape women, while we'd both agree saying a crime victim deserved it is brash and vile, if it is a fact, and I believe it is, that a woman wearing next to nothing and becoming deliriously intoxicated who becomes sexually assaulted would not have been if they were dressed modestly and sober, and if a man who states again what I am arguing is a fact. That root fact essentially being "less women will become sexually assaulted if dressed modestly and remain sober". If it is a fact and by communicating it to multiple people less women become victims of sexual assault... I ask you. Is that a service or a disservice?
There is no church state now. No moral guidelines for raising children. If people want to embrace the worst traits of humanity to get ahead they will. It is simply the world we live in. So again. Is such a statement that prevents countless sexual assaults a service or a disservice?
It's a disservice, as you're framing it as the victim's responsibility to refrain from acceptable behaviour as a means to lessen the chance of being victimized rather than the perpetrator's responsibility to refrain from unacceptable and criminal behaviour.
Should a gay couple refrain from holding hands in public where there are known to be homophobes? Should a Muslim family refrain from practicing their religion where there are known to be Islamophobes?
That gay people are less likely to be victimized if they stop being gay (or stop showing themselves to be gay) or that Muslims are less likely to be victimized if they stop being Muslim (or stop showing themselves to be Muslim) is irrelevant and an insult to suggest, even if true. And that women are less likely to be victimized if they dress more conservatively is irrelevant and an insult to suggest, even if true. The responsibility is entirely on the homophobes, the Islamophobes, and the rapists.
Possibility!
While that's a good approach in principle, it may be too idealistic. Many women (particularly a so-called career woman), would more often than not have complained to HR/management and thus would take exception to a MAN asking her that question. She would get offended and defensive (probably because she's insecure deep down and the man was simply speaking the truth).
My question to women out there, regarding the OP is, I often wondered about this disjuncture. And that relates to aesthetics. There is this old paradigm that used to say 'men are too visual' . Well, I think some women are kidding themselves for the following reasons:
1. Most women want an attractive man that they feel chemistry with physically, in order to have sex.
If that were not true, then the following could exist:
1.a: Some women will sleep/marry a fat ugly guy who has lots of money which in turn suggests they are not interested in sex, but security.
1.b: Some women don't care about the physicality piece, and they like sex for the sake of sex, and as long as the penis gets hard, they are good to go. (And that they want to have kids for selfish reasons.) In other words, they are not concerned with the visual aspect like they say men are; they will sleep with unattractive men for different reasons. And that also might suggest they like sex more than some men. ( And that they are less visual than men.)
Now, I haven't brought up the mind and spirit piece of the mind, body, spirit connection, which in turn is a whole 'nother subject. Let's just say I've met plenty of women who are introverted and who are not intellectual or spiritual themselves. They seemingly don't really care; they want good sex. And as long as the basic existential needs are met, they are fine with that. And so I find myself asking, if they are not that concerned with the intellectual/spiritual connection, then what... ?
Taking that yet another step forward, consider the dynamic between a man and a women as they age. What kind of connection or chemistry will provide for a lasting relationship(?). What does it look like when everything sags and is wrinkly? Meaning, if existentially, men and women just want sex (procreation and sex for fun) and companionship, then why should one be all that concerned with anything else? What is chemistry? Is it aesthetic/visual? What happens when it's gone?
I'm thinking that the visual piece weighs quite heavily in the decision making process nonetheless. How can we escape it? Should women just marry for money, security and/or to mitigate aloneness (then have affairs with attractive men on the side to satisfy their fantasies)? (Actually, some men marry to mitigate aloneness, then have affairs to meet their other needs.)
Finally, then there are those like Schopenhauer who said without sex, men and women would hate each other(?).
Thoughts?
I wonder if he said this before or after he pushed a woman down a stairway because he thought she was too loud. Later, he gloated when she died thereby ending his obligation to pay damages for her injuries.
Charming fellow, Schopenhauer.
Good point, pretty despicable behavior. Maybe he was a sexually frustrated male...
And here I thought Epstein hung himself in jail... yet he lives in your words, along with all the other sick fuckers in this world who do shit like he did.
Michael and Street covered this...
There were no less rapes happening before scantily clad dress and women drinking was acceptable.
How do both men and women escape that?
Even if true. Well. There we have it. Says who? You? A male? How omniscient of you. Well it appears even the best of us have some chauvinistic tendencies.
No. The criminal is always at fault and will receive due punishment no matter how hard they try to circumvent or obfuscate. Meanwhile. Can you wave a magic wand and turn all would be rapists into dust? Can you pass some law that pragmatically eliminates all rape? Unless the answer is yes the question remains the same. Does a statement that prevents sexual assault of women in the interim offer a service or a disservice? Do you still state that such a statement that prevents sexual assault is irrelevant and an insult? Bear in mind were also talking about the general non-binary concept of a sober person being less likely to be taken advantage of than a deliriously drunk person.
It's a disservice, irrelevant, and an insult. Again, it's like telling a gay couple to hide their affection in public because it will stop them from being harassed by homophobes.
Quoting Outlander
I'm not referring to telling people not to get deliriously drunk. That's just common sense health advise. I'm referring to telling people to dress conservatively.
It might be. To be honest, I didn’t write this with a workplace situation in mind at all, so I can see how it could backfire in that case. It depends on how you approach it, I suppose. Work situations are such politically-charged environments. “I’m curious as to why you chose to wear this particular outfit today” seems harmless enough.
My point was that you cannot assume a woman’s intentions purely by the way she’s dressed.
Quoting 3017amen
I think saying ‘men are too visual’ is not quite getting at the issue. Most women are looking for a sexual partner - not sex, per say.
As a woman, I am drawn to visual appealing men, but personally I’ve found physical attraction or chemistry to be insufficient for a satisfying sexual encounter. Good looks might get my attention in a highly competitive environment - particularly if my main aim is just a sexual partner - but honestly, if you can demonstrate a genuine interest in who I am as a thinking, feeling human being, then I’m not going to write you off based on your looks - that’s rare enough in the singles game. Unassuming charm, a quick intellect and courage will always get my attention, but it isn’t all that difficult to spot the guys who are only interested in ‘closing the deal’ if you’re paying attention. That’s not to say I won’t go for the good-looking player if I’m just after an ego boost, but a fat ugly guy won’t get away with the same slick, shallow moves even if I’m desperate, I’m afraid. They’re unlikely to be too concerned with my satisfaction, either way.
So when they say ‘men are too visual’, what women could mean is that men don’t seem to be after much more than sex plus the visual - a partner isn’t a requirement for a satisfying sexual encounter.
Ya gotta be shitting me, Mike. Have things really changed that much?
I'm gonna be 84 in a few weeks, so this is mostly academic at this point, but not too many years ago, my aim in life was to find as many women as possible who would treat me as a disposable dildo. I especially liked any woman who would fuck me sore...and then, shortly after both having our fill, make an excuse to leave. Saved me the trouble of thinking up a reason for asking them to leave.
Let me tell you a joke, mate. A homophobe, an Islamaphobe, an Islamist, a gay man with a scar under his left eye from persecution, and a Christian walk into a bar. The first two insult the gay man. The second and third start to get into it. The Christian tells them to calm down some. Later, the first and third take the gay man up to the roof to throw him off it. The second and the Christian go up to stop it while the second says "I told you so". The first and third push him off but being so drunk they forgot they were only on the third story. The second and the Christian, in their drunken state take the first and third to the top and throw the remaining off. The Christian converts the first one and they team up to fight Christianophobia in the Middle East. The two make it far in politics yet are discovered when they realize the man who got them where they were, after taking off his mask was the gay man from the bar. They are led to be beheaded. The two Christians are about to be beheaded when a stranger comes up and shouts "Stop. By order of the Emir!" The two Christians turn to see a man dressed in royal robes who's head is cloaked, save for one view of a small scar. They are allowed to return home and the former dictatorship is now a democracy, where no man is persecuted due to his action.
Far from a joke, friend. It's happening as we speak.
Do you care if the guy is successfully putting on caring and flirting as a performance? This is something I've never gotten my head around. The hetero male flirting for casual sex metagame seems to me all about adaptively signalling caring and interest as well as desire. Like - would you see it as a transgression if they're putting on a performance like that? Or is it an acceptable risk/otherwise fine for you as part of the social rituals that mediate casual sex?
It might seem like an obscure question, but I've had quite a few very candid discussions with guys on their casual sex flirting strategies, and they're all about trying to signal interest and generate connection regardless of whether they really give a damn or not. Perhaps I am strange in finding this extremely uncomfortable, it seems deeply transgressive to me.
It's quite possible to feel desire or attraction for a person without objectifying them. There's a difference between a thing and a person, and no great effort is required to know the difference. I think that the difference is known even by those who objectify another, but they are so completely selfish and concerned to pleasure themselves that they ignore the difference. We can recognize this is a defect, a weakness, and overcome it. We take sex far too seriously.
:clap:
:smirk:
:up:
For the most part , I respectfully disagree. If a man looks like a pimp, he just might be a pimp. If he looks like a football player, wrestler, musician, doctor...ad nauseum...you get the idea. A person's attire tells a lot about them.
Quoting Possibility
Perhaps I meet too many angry women (or man hater's not sure) but even in social environments, asking those kinds of questions, to a woman, unfortunately is not received well. People [women] have a hard time with the truth. I mean, we all want transparency, honestly, and all the rest, but many folks can't handle what they ask for...why is that?
Quoting Possibility
I'm just a bit confused there, can you explain that distinction a little better? On the one hand, you seem to be saying looks don't matter, then on the other you seem to care. For example, when you say a fat ugly guy gets different treatment, you are saying that appearances actually do matter, no?
Quoting Possibility
I think a good starting point would be your definition of 'a partner'. Is it not sex and companionship?Now, if all you are talking about is a guy who is considerate, kind, caring, intelligent, mature, that's all common sense stuff. We're adults here.
I know many women who've told me if the sex ain't good, they walk! Similarly, I can't imagine them even considering a sex partner who is unappealing. My point is, how do we escape objectification in a world of objectivity?
Really, can you explain that one? Think of it this way, when you go on a dating site, many if not all will say something like 'if you have no picture, I won't respond'. Why is that, I wonder?
Are men and women shallow? For instance, if you were a pen pal with someone for a year, and really connected with them intellectually and spiritually, but when you met them they were not what you expected (or whatever else was wrong with them physically or chemistry-wise) would you still be attracted to them?
180!
Are you joking?
Quoting 180 Proof
Why is that?
Quoting 180 Proof
Does that mean one can love a car, dog, house, or any other physically pleasing thing?
Quoting Michael
But it isn't necessarily that kind of framing. Locking your car/bike/house makes you a less likely victim of theft, even though the responsibility would be entirely the thief's. Since presumably you don't find it a disservice to point out that sort of thing, how can you tell what the intended framing is when someone points out increased risk due to some other form of acceptable behavior?
As far as I can tell, this particular question of how sexual assault correlates with victim behavior tends to be one where people see only the framing they want to see. You seemed to see the framing that anyone pointing out a statistical connection between behavior and likelihood of being victimized is shifting part of the blame on victims, whereas someone else will see the framing that even obvious attempts to shift blame on victims are just genuine concern.
P.S. I see no reason to assume that skimpy clothing as such increases risk, at least where I'm from (obviously, in some other parts of the world it definitely would). Heavy intoxication clearly seems to.
Well, even my "jokes" are serious.
Ask any woman.
... rather than a "thing" that's not "physically pleasing"? or a "physically pleasing" no-thing? :roll:
I'm not sure, but I don't think it follows from the fact that we want to see what someone looks like that we objectify them. As far as I know, there's nothing wrong with wanting to know how someone else looks. Something more would be needed to treat someone as a mere object.
Quoting 3017amen
I'm not sure you're addressing objectification. I don't think anyone is obligated to find someone attractive. Say you aren't and decide no sexual relationship is possible. You can still treat someone with respect, and value them as having intellectual and spiritual aspects your find sympathetic. The fact you find someone attractive or unattractive has nothing to do with objectification, in my mind. How you treat someone does.
You recognise that someone being attractive, wearing suggestive clothing or acting provocatively does not mean someone is there to fulfil your sexual desires. When you are relating to people, you understand that sexual relations and appearance are not defined by whether someone feels attraction, but by whether the other person wants to be invoved.
People do not objectify themsleves. Not even when they're writhing around naked in front of a crowd. The supposition they must be a sexual object come from the watching crowds. Watchers are the ones who suppose whatever an attractive person does makes them available for sex. They are the ones who decide to treat attractive people like they don't have their own wishes or personhood. Objectification is not in feeling someone is attractive or a person wearing little, it's in supposing someone to be there for one's sexual desire just because they exist.
Thanks for your replies. This is a fascinating subject but I only have time for a couple of quick true or false sound bites. And will resume discussion tomorrow if that's okay. Accordingly, an in the meantime consider the following:
1.Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it.
2. Consider the executive career woman who finds a well-dressed man attractive. The man knows that his attire, as well as his good looks and physique, are appealing to women. Further his self-esteem is such that not only does he respect himself enough to stay healthy and fit but he also respects other women who do the same.
And so back to the career woman who finds this particular male attractive. Does she find him attractive as a potential sex partner? Does she find him attractive as a potential romance? If so, is not one of the components of love what they call, romantic love, and is that not based on objectification?
3. From a perspective of existential phenomenology and the human condition, we have the dynamic of subject-object. From this perspective, morals and ethics (and logic) are not considered in the phenomenon of romance. Even more so, in the attachment theory; baby sees Mom, Mom leaves the room, baby cries. The object known as the mother has left the baby's sight. The ideal object is that which is being perceived. How important is the object being perceived?
4. In the philosophy of aesthetics, how shall we parse the differences between the appreciation of object's beauty and the objectification of same, excluding the implications of deleterious moral and ethical behavior?
I'm trying to remove the psychological component of objectification, and instead, trying to shed light on the nature of the phenomenal experience, including the existential component that we seemingly cannot escape. Also, I realize this may be hard to do since the concept of objective beauty is tantamount to one's well-being. I submit that the definition of objectification has more implications...
Okay, I am back :gasp: Are you certain about those things? For one, you appear to be suggesting that women and men do not care about their bodies enough to purchase flattering clothing, swimsuits, cosmetics, hair dyes, tattoos, shoes, mirrors, exercise equipment (gyms), and all the rest. And how would you know what it's like to be in a nudist colony (I have)?
Assuming you're woman, are you in denial of your own sexuality? Do you not consider yourself a (desired) sexual being? ( I consider myself, in part, a sexual being.)
Forgive me for the absurdity of such rhetorical questions, but there seems to be some old paradigms at work here...
Not at all defending Schopenhauer's behavior, but this story always makes me chuckle just because of how ridiculous and petty it is.
I find it uncomfortable as well. Sex without genuine connection seems to me like masturbating with someone else's body. You pretend to care so that you can use someone else.
And to know that another person doesn't care about you beyond your appearance, and to be okay with that, makes it sound like you don't really care about yourself.
A sad and unimaginative view. The worst thing is that you move from personal discomfort so easily into moral condemnation.
People like to have sex and they play games around that. If both parties are playing the game, it's a form of relating to someone as a person, not merely using someone as a means or treating them as an object.
It's more like a dance. A dance is not made up of truthful statements and there's no reason flirting should be either, just because it happens partly in language.
I think that is true, what makes me uncomfortable are situations where one person is signalling that they are "connected" for the sole purposes of getting sex, and the other is unaware that their game partner is using it simply as a strategy to obtain casual sex. I believe that's a way of not playing the same game.
I don't know how common it really is, or whether the Connection Flirting Script is just seen as part of the game.
It can be uncomfortable for you and even personally wrong, but some people want causal sex, and that's fine for them. Or at least, it's for them to determine. It's too easy for society to want to go the moral condemnation route.
But I don't even think it's clear how to distinguish genuine from fake interest. In performing a connection, a connection is made, I think. Often.
A person who does not have a deficiency of self-esteem will require that objectification not be the only form of attention they receive. It is not nourishing enough to be told they are physically attractive; more is needed for any of it to mean anything. Nor will they consider deception as anything but a disregard of their dignity.
If sex doesn't mean anything, then it's masturbation. If it does by itself, then it's cheap validation.
This is only a moral condemnation of the behavior of those who deceive unsuspecting people, or deliberately prey upon those with low self-esteem, in order to have sex with them. Otherwise it's a statement of my thoughts and feelings on the matter, based on introspection, personal experience and observation of other people.
Quoting darthbarracuda
For you it might be. For others, casual sex is most often a much more complex and interesting connection between two people than mere masturbation, no matter how brief the encounter.
I stated that meaningless sex is equivalent to masturbation. I did not state that casual sex is equivalent to masturbation.
Having sex with someone can be extraordinarily intimate and meaningful, even if it doesn't carry long-term commitment. As you said, casual sex can be a much more complex and interesting than mere masturbation.
My point was the difference between using your hand and using a person is minimal when there isn't any care involved.
Well we're in agreement then. But I suspect you have a higher bar for what you consider to be a "genuine connection".
Yep. Not sure what all the fuss is about. What did we do when we were in college; ate, slept, studied and had sex (I didn't party much).
I remember one of my girlfriend's telling me..."what relationship, we're in college!".
So let's face it, you get men and women all together in one big building, and sooner or later somebody's going to start fucking.
Is that objectification I wonder?
:up:
Quoting jamalrob
I don't wanna draw a line for other people regarding what consentual games are played. They seem to enjoy it. There's even some nice moments of erogenous surprise in flirting with strangers - I miss those, all too rare to be surprised by joy (hashtag CS Lewis) and genital sensation. Creating desire and having desire created in yourself is a lot of fun.
It’s actually a good question. Casual sex for the most part is a mutual fantasy - it’s a dance of cognitive dissonance. He pretends he’s interested in a relationship beyond sex, and I pretend not to notice the pretense. When I stretch and test his performance, though, his true colours will show through under the surface. From this I can decide whether I think the game is worth playing out, whether I buys into the fantasy, or not.
Because there’s another layer many people don’t realise. Even in casual sex, a woman wants a sexual partner, if only for that encounter, whether she realises it or not. So the real signal isn’t just about acknowledging that she has a life - a career, interests, hobbies, etc - it’s about acknowledging that she has a choice, in this moment and the next one. This is difficult to fake. Some men wouldn’t even see her as an agent, let alone a partner in the encounter. Their aim is to gradually eliminate or obscure her options. That’s the transgression. It’s a danger that women are not always prepared for, and that men may not even realise is a problem - until they’re accused of rape.
Let me ask you: do you believe that there’s a point (which may vary between men) at which a sexual act is a foregone conclusion? Can you assume that a woman commits irreversibly to the act at some point? Because most women can talk themselves into and out of an encounter several times, at any point throughout, depending on his behaviour. What she wants from him is not just sex, but human interaction, so if she starts to feel like she should have more of a choice in how it goes then she’s going to want out. It seems to me that this is where the main issue lies, but she often realises this only when she has poor choices left.
So, for me at least, there’s a difference between not giving a damn about an extended relationship and not giving a damn about your sexual partner as a fellow human being with agency. I enjoy the pretense of a ‘possible’ romantic connection as much as the next girl, but underneath that is the real question: Is he respecting my freedom to choose?
Nah. I think I felt more like that when I was younger though - not that I was "entitled to sex", just that I got more pissed off and bamboozled with rejections.
Quoting Possibility
That's interesting. So for you it actually doesn't matter whether the connection is "genuine" or not, just whether you're in the mood, physically attracted enough and whether he's performed/improvised/responded in a manner that suits your moment to moment expectations/desires?
Quoting Possibility
:up:
It's very easy to reduce someone to the role they are subscribed/expected to perform.
A more pernicious (and all too common) form of it seems to be doing whatever you can to erode your target's personal boundaries.
Quoting Possibility
That also makes a lot of sense to me. Any form of intimacy shouldn't have to be linked to a romantic relationship for its validation, conversely; cherish transient instances of intimacy, they are all too rare.
Thank you for indulging my question.
Possibilty!
With all due respect, this almost seems like a head game. I don't think that's your intention, and maybe I read it wrong. Firstly, I don't know where you are getting your stats, but many women just want sex. Depending on the particular season of one's life ( in college) for example, those existential needs rear their heads. Similarly, when I worked in a night club in a tourist town years back (not in a band like I am now), women would come in and felt free to be promiscuous because they were not recognized locally.
Secondly, of course the old-school obvious definition of objectification is a no-brainer. I mean, it's an abhorrent, detestable example of what human nature is capable of.. . Okay then, so now what? Please tell me how objectification of men and women is a bad thing, when doing your dance?
A person’s attire suggests a lot about them, but to make assumptions purely by the way they’re dressed can be rude, insulting and dangerous. Just because someone’s wearing scrubs and a white coat, doesn’t make them qualified to operate on you, does it?
Quoting 3017amen
This is a common excuse, but I’m not buying it. Have a little courage - I’m suggesting you ask a question, not offer a judgement or a ‘truth’.
Quoting 3017amen
I never said I didn’t care about looks - they’re not a dealbreaker, for me. Appearances matter more if I’m only looking for an ego boost, though. And if I’m willing to play the casual sex game with someone who clearly is just after a conquest, then I’m going to be choosy about it.
Quoting 3017amen
‘Partner’ indicates a human interaction between freely choosing adults. See my response to fdrake above for more on this.
Really? By all Objective appearances, absolutely. If a Doctor dresses the part, would you reasonably assume he was a doctor and thereby allow him to operate on you? Or, on the other hand, while you are laying there semi-conscious, would you ask for his resume?
Quoting Possibility
Well you should buy it. Or at least be true to yourself here. The fact is, you probably get perturbed when someone doesn't like what you are wearing. Or, as you say, when someone questions your attire. For many reasons, this makes you feel less than a woman, because your self-esteem is partially attached to your appearance (simple psychology here):
1. Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it. True or false?
Quoting Possibility
And I argue that it is a deal breaker. Are you trying to tell me a fat-ugly-bald guy (subjective criteria/apologies to fat ugly bald men here) who has bad personal hygiene , who is the most honorable, intelligent, caring man on the globe and that you would welcome passionate love making with him? If so, does this perpetuate the gold-digger archetype?
Quoting Possibility
Of course. And that human interaction is making love/having sex with someone who is objectively, appealing to you, both logically and physically. No?
It seems he wasn't a likeable man in general, prone to insult, pretentious and arrogant. But perhaps he associated the woman too much with his mother, with whom he had an antagonistic relationship. As might be expected, he claimed the woman he pushed deliberately fell in an effort to set him up for legal action. A court disagreed.
Why believe that finding someone sexually attractive and acting on that attraction constitutes objectification? As far as I'm aware, nobody has claimed that it's immoral or improper to desire someone or have consensual sex with them.
That's not what I'm saying, read my earlier post to you... . You seem all twisted up over the ethical implications.... .
I'm arguing one cannot escape pure objectification in a world of physical appearances.
Well, I don’t agree that sex as an act is an existential need. It’s a biological urge, sure. But I’d be pretty confident that those women being ‘promiscuous’ do not ‘just want sex’ as an act. I’d say they’re exercising a freedom of choice they probably don’t feel they have at home: to casually explore sexual encounters and partners so they can discover what is valuable to them. These aren’t stats, by the way - they’re opinions from many years experiencing the world as a woman and in the confidence of many other women.
Quoting 3017amen
Objectifying men or women in the casual sex ‘dance’ contributes to an erosion of agency. If you perceive a woman only as an object of your sexual desire, then you’re likely to perceive her agency - her capacity to reject you or to desire someone else - as an unacceptable threat. Likewise with men. It’s what men and women are capable of when threatened by an ‘object’ that can be a ‘bad thing’.
And if a scantily clad woman walked up to you and whispered “Let’s have sex”, you wouldn’t stop her to ask her why she was dressed that way. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...
You’re not just making assumptions about the doctor based on what she’s wearing - you’d be taking into account her behaviour, the situation and other people’s behaviour towards her. And it’s customary for a doctor to introduce themselves and clearly express their intentions before they even examine you. Why? Because THEY know that just because they’re dressed as a doctor, you should never assume their intentions.
Yes, and I would submit you are lying to yourself. You seem to be making political statements based on an unrealistic ideology. Because sex is such a personal topic, people will typically tell you what they want you to hear. They are most likely feeding into your narrative. Have you studied the history of Sex? Are you aware of ancient concubines? Asian penis (and vagina) worship? What about porn, why are so many porn stars seemingly available on the internet? Just type-in men's dicks or women's pussies... . My point is that those women DO want sex, and they don't want it with just anybody, or wait, do they?
Quoting Possibility
Sure, and this 'agency' is what a handsome well kept man, who brings a lot to the table, has to offer you. Otherwise, you would marry an ugly-fat-bald guy who smells bad just because he's kind considerate, caring and has money. The fact remains, you want it all. And you should want it all. A handsome, intelligent, responsible and successful man around your arms in a social gathering, as well as someone to father your children and snuggle at night. It follows that you would not settle for casual sex with the former, or would you?
As far as a threat, a threat to what? I'm not following that? If I am an attractive, successful man, why should I feel threatened? Objectively, I care for my body, and respect those women who care for theirs.
Correct. And that's my point. You make judgements based on objectification.
Insofar as anything can be treated as an object, that is an objectification. But it doesn't mean the same thing as objectification in the way other people besides you are using it. SEP lists the following aspects of objectification:
instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
Rae Langton (2009, 228–229) has added three more features to Nussbaum’s list:
reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.
If you really can't see the difference between what you're talking about and the intended topic after reading that list, I dunno what to tell you. If you want to treat them both as the same thing - why? What purpose could it possibly serve? :chin:
Well, as you wish. For me, the ethical implications of objectification are the only implications of significance. The subject/object thing does nothing for me. I'm not a fan of dualisms. So, carry on.
fdrake! Thanks I get that. That's obvious. If we were to agree to the standard definition, it could be answered in one post: unacceptable behavior. There would be no need to argue that, right? Instead, this is what I'm arguing:
1.Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it.
2. Consider the executive career woman who finds a well-dressed man attractive. The man knows that his attire, as well as his good looks and physique, are appealing to women. Further his self-esteem is such that not only does he respect himself enough to stay healthy and fit but he also respects other women who do the same.
[And so back to the career woman who finds this particular male attractive. ]Does she find him attractive as a potential sex partner? Does she find him attractive as a potential romance? If so, is not one of the components of love what they call, romantic love, and is that not based on objectification?
3. From a perspective of existential phenomenology and the human condition, we have the dynamic of subject-object. From this perspective, morals and ethics (and logic) are not considered in the phenomenon of romance. Even more so, in the attachment theory; baby sees Mom, Mom leaves the room, baby cries. The object known as the mother has left the baby's sight. The ideal object is that which is being perceived. How important is the object being perceived?
4. In the philosophy of aesthetics, how shall we parse the differences between the appreciation of object's beauty and the objectification of same, excluding the implications of deleterious moral and ethical behavior?
I'm trying to remove the psychological [moral/ethical] component of objectification, and instead, trying to shed light on the nature of the phenomenal experience, including the existential component that we seemingly cannot escape. Also, I realize this may be hard to do since the concept of objective beauty is tantamount to one's well-being. I submit that the definition of objectification has more implications...
And so , in that context(s), do we make judgements based upon objectification?
Self concept is much different from treating oneself as an object; a person enacts a self concept in how they evaluate themselves - and hows are not whats. Unless you're making the previous metaphysical move that any way of interacting with a distinct entity is an objectification, in which case why bother, if you already "get that"? The metaphysical baggage you're bringing to the discussion is obfuscating the issue.
Quoting 3017amen
So yes, it seems you are making the move that any way that a subject relates to anything besides itself contains an aspect of objectification. Entirely irrelevant to objectification as a mode of human conduct; even non-objectifying ethical conduct could be objectifying in terms of your subject-object stuff; which is really a sign that you're talking about something much different.
If any relationship towards another human, or even oneself, has aspects of objectification (relating to something as an object (the metaphysical category)), what you're saying is quite irrelevant to the notion of objectification under discussion in the thread. The only purchase you've gained in the argument is by muddying the terms.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Are you sure?
Let's look at Architecture briefy. The interior designer establishes interior finishes, including paint colors. They propose colors based upon many things, one of which is the emotive force behind the visual impact to human's. For instance, the color wheel indicates yellow is a happy color; red is a firey anxious color. Are we objectifying the visual impact of colors?
We could draw analogies to cars, houses, buildings, you name it. Anything that is an object gets objectified. No?
fdrake!
Not sure I'm follwing you there. Are you saying the feeling of colors (for example) is both an objectification of an object, as well as a metaphysical phenomenon (Qualia) associated with consciousness? In other words, both a physical and meta-physical attribute of human existence?
And what do you presume I'm talking about viz physical human relationships?
This is the definition of "objectification" with which this thread began:
Quoting TheMadFool
Not to say Wikipedia is the last word on anything, but as this definition commenced the thread and was plainly intended to apply to the thread, I think it's what should be taken to be the "objectification" at issue.
It's unclear to me that the colors, cars, houses, etc. you refer to are being or can be dehumanized. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that only humans can be dehumanized, and that only the humanity of humans may be disallowed.
I suspect, then, that you're referring--for reasons unknown to me--to something other than the dehumanization of women, or their treatment as an object or thing. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to; perhaps you think that everything we experience are, necessarily, objects to us in some sense or we perceive them as such. I'm with Dewey in most things, and so tend to think of experience as an interaction with our environment, often non-cognitive, so wouldn't necessarily agree with such a view. But whatever you may be referring to, I don't think it pertains to this thread.
CW!
Thanks, but as I said, if that's the only definition, then one post should answer the question, right? Have you considered the philosophy of aesthetics? For instance, "realizations" (which are always physical entities) suggest that objects are a work of art. If the human body ( both male and female) is a work of art and considered valued as something beautiful (or not beautiful) hasn't the object in effect become objectified, yes?
Same with colors. When selecting colors, you select them based on mental criteria, as
I briefly discussed previously (in Architecture). In effect, you are objectifying the object. You are making judgements about what is appropriate to suit your criterion. This color over that color. You like one over the other; one object over another object.
And so, to your point, herewith is your dehumanization analogy. It can be done with human beings unconsciously. Whether it is big butts, small feet, nose hair, unibrow, etc. etc. we objectify the physical object.
Think of it another way, why do you care to look in the mirror?
You continue to regurgitate the standard definition from an unethical, dysfunctional viewpoint. That's fine. Everyone gets that. My point is that there is another element to this so-called sense of perception. And in turn, it becomes an intrinsic or integral part of the objectification-of-the-object phenomenon.
(In this aesthetic theory, one could change the OP to 'The Objectification of Men, Cars, etc.' and similar if not the same rules would apply, no? Any object can be objectified, rightly or wrongly.)
Sexual Objectification
Are you sure?
Objectify:
1. to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.
2. express (something abstract) in a concrete form.
3. to give expression to (something, such as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.
4. : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality
Again, any object can be objectified rightly or wrongly.
I am personally not comfortable having sex with someone unless I have an ongoing relationship with them. I think if I truly care about someone then I want to continue to care for them in the future. It is hard for me to imagine caring about a person I have a one-night-stand with (beyond the usual care I give towards strangers). Upon reflection I suppose this might mean I take sex more seriously than others. I guess I consider it to be a more privileged activity, idk.
Other people might feel that sex is an ordinary activity that can be shared with strangers. It's not my place to judge, even if it's difficult for me to understand. Live and let live.
I am being true to myself - you are dismissing my account of inner reality based on your assumption that everyone thinks the way you think they do. I’m trying to be honest here about my inner process, because there are very few women on this forum to represent (and you wonder why...?), and some assumptions need to be corrected. So stop telling me what I’m thinking or feeling, and try listening instead.
Yes, I get perturbed when someone feels the need to tell me that they don’t like what I’m wearing, as if assuming that I dress with their needs and preferences in mind. My self esteem is partially attached to my appearance, yes - but I am also more than what or how I appear, and I will recognise and react to being treated as if my choices are not my own.
Quoting 3017amen
Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, but my self worth is not wrapped up in it at all. In most situations in my life, feeling unattractive or unsexy doesn’t even register. So false.
Quoting 3017amen
Again with the dismissive attitude towards my perspective. Sex isn’t about the act for women - it’s about an expression of agency. Women, for the most part, do NOT just want a sexual act with any body, detached from a human being. They will often choose to feed into the male narrative, but they ALWAYS do it for their own reasons, not yours. When you assume that they do it for the reasons that make sense to you, you deny them subjectivity and agency.
Quoting 3017amen
Oh, dear - is that really how you think women choose sexual partners? A handsome, well-kept man who has success and money does NOT offer me agency. I already have it, thank you very much.
The truth is that most guys will be fat, ugly, bald or smelly at some point in their life. An absence of these should not be a reason to marry someone. They can, however, be reasons to pass on casual sex, which is about that moment. Rich and successful factor into the casual sex game only as part of the fantasy - a creative thinker can work poor or unsuccessful into a narrative easy enough, and still get laid.
I think you might be confusing casual sex with finding a life partner. They are two completely different strategies for women, and they’re looking for very different qualities. Just because it all looks the same from your end, does not mean it is.
Quoting 3017amen
It is exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem. An attractive, successful man believes that he should NOT feel threatened by a woman because he assumes she has no reason to say ‘no’, and a fat, poor man assumes that a woman is saying ‘no’ because he is fat or poor - but has anyone asked the woman what HER reasoning is? You’re reducing a complex and diverse decision-making process into an over-simplified value system that is grossly inaccurate for predicting how a woman chooses.
And how exactly do you ‘respect’ a woman who cares for her body? By appreciating the body in motion, or appreciating the choices she makes with it?
No - this is not objectification, it’s respecting her choice. If you then dismissed her preferences for how, where and when sex would occur - because she literally ‘asked for it’ - THAT would be objectification.
I don't understand. Are you saying that if it looks like a duck walks like a duck and acts like a duck, that it's not a duck?
Perhaps this question is easier for you. Can any object be objectified rightly or wrongly? Hint: a beauty pageant.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that is opposite of what you recommended in your earlier post. To paraphrase you you recommended to be bold and ask the woman the question, concerning her attire. Considering what you just said in the foregoing statement, do you think a man would be encouraged to ask such a question after what you just said (about being perturbed)?
What would be the reasons why there are so many women in pornography? If it's to feed into the male narrative that sounds pretty empowering LoL
Okay so in the context of objectifying the object what criteria is appropriate in both finding a life partner and having casual sex?
Sorry for the multiple post my phone isn't working very well.
Don't overthink this Possibility. The first point relates to the fact that an attractive healthy well built successful man should have a self-esteem such that emotionally, he is able to love himself in a healthy way. And in turn, he is able to love a woman as he loves himself.
Not to mention that he holds women in a high regard and respects them, even more so, when they are healthy and physically fit. And that is because they respect their respective bodies enough not only for their own well-being but for the benefit of their partners. In other words, I would want to keep my body in shape so that my partner can enjoy my body just as I would want the same in return.. Common sense?
So the answer to this question ..."And how exactly do you ‘respect’ a woman who cares for her body? By appreciating the body in motion, or appreciating the choices she makes with it?" ...is obvious, the answer is both. I appreciate the beauty of the human body. Personally, aside from extremely obese women, I appreciate most sizes including the archetypical curvy 'Greek' figure.
If you can’t make a distinction in your words between asking someone why they chose to wear a particular top and telling someone that you don’t like what they’re wearing, then I can’t help you. If what you say comes across as a judgement on their actions instead of expressing interest in how they think, then you probably should take a good look at your use of language.
Possibility!!
Let's see, well, if a woman asks her man if she looks fat in that dress, and he tells her the truth, do you think she will handle that truth?
This almost begs another question. If the stereotypical (and please correct me here if I'm out of line) woman is supposedly more sensitive than a man, would it follow that you, being a woman, will more often than not default to taking things perhaps the wrong way (overreact)? Meaning, in cognition, some have argued that intellect, is subordinate to sentience. The jist is that the limbic system at the base of the brain is primitive in nature, and computes the feelings of fear, instincts, sensory processing, and so forth first, before its sent to the rational (larger) part of the brain. And, it's a small structure that other animals (small and large) share. Now why the woman's cognition computes things differently is a discussion for another time, but I think you get my point. And that is, the man, in your theory there of political correctness, would constantly be on egg-shells if they followed your advice from the foregoing quote.
I know that feeds into some old stereotype's, but I hope you can prove me wrong there...as I'm hopeful, as you suggested, that a man can ask a woman anything, without her getting defensive or otherwise taking it too personal and overreacting in the wrong way. Otherwise, your call for full transparency between the sexes is likely too idealistic and tantamount to little more than a pipe dream.
A duck is not just an object, any more than a scantily clad woman is just an object. To objectify what is not just an object is to deny that it’s anything more - not a living, feeling creature, or a thinking human being.
FWIW, the beauty pageant quickly became a way for women to co-opt a patriarchal narrative (the aesthetic value of the female body) as an expression of agency. It’s not a particularly effective way by today’s standards, but pageants originated in a world where women didn’t have much in the way of a voice. Miss America, as an example, has gradually evolved into a scholarship programme for young women.
Quoting 3017amen
There are so many women in pornography because they continue to be denied agency by other means. And there is so much demand in the industry.
As a young teen, my father’s most frequent comment to me was that I was “growing more beautiful every day”. He genuinely believed he was paying me a compliment - which he was - but what I internalised was that my high academic achievements and my thoughts or opinions were unimportant, because they were never acknowledged by the one male whose opinion mattered the most to me. And what mattered most to him was how I looked. These experiences are formative, and are reinforced with almost every other male encounter. I eventually managed a good education despite this, and I’m not against complimenting women (or men) on their appearance. But it’s what isn’t acknowledged that can have an insidious effect. This kind of ‘casual objectification’ is so common and invisible that men just cannot see the work that needs to be done and the lack of genuine opportunities for a woman to reclaim agency without either directly attacking the male narrative or feeding into it and then looking for ways to co-opt it.
It’s not anyone’s fault - it is what it is. I just wish men wouldn’t make it so difficult by continuing to assume (and refusing to hear otherwise) that a woman’s inner world and subjective experience is a reflection (or subset) of a man’s. Recognise that your disagreement with what I’m saying might actually be because you’ve never experienced what women are thinking or feeling - you’re making your own subjective assessment of my words and behaviour, based on a limited experience.
No person, woman, man or any other kind of rational being, wishes to be treated like an object. I could say that without much understanding of anything in the world; it is simple logic. “Objectification” means turning something into an object (presumably something that wasn’t originally an object) and the only thing that isn’t an object, is a person.
No thinking being could possibly want to be a non-thinking being, because if it were, it wouldn’t want anything. Moreover, every conscious being wishes to be respected as such since its idea of itself necessarily includes its consciousness. We all, men and women, want to be respected and admired, and although some of us don’t mind presenting ourselves as something different from what we really are, we need to think that what we show the world is somehow attached to our personhood, or else we are not the ones who have these characteristics. Accordingly, an attractive woman needs to think she is attractive as a person and not as an object.
Quoting Possibility
I don’t believe much in asking people why they perform their habitual actions. You may of course get the right answer, but it’s also likely that they don’t have sufficient self-consciousness to see through their own real reasons. Very often a psychologist would do a better job explaining their behavior, and sometimes simple logic does the trick.
The irony is we are treated like objects because we are physical objects. Can any physical object get objectified rightly or wrongly? Do you choose a romantic relationship partially on physical appearance? This may help:
Objectify:
1. to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.
2. express (something abstract) in a concrete form.
3. to give expression to (something, such as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.
4. : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality
It's a no-brainer to suggest human beings are more than purely/exclusively objective-objects. On the other hand, you cannot escape the phenomenal experience of our physical nature, and the underlying importance and impact to our volitional existence. The philosophy of aesthetics provides for a little insight there. Otherwise you will have to parse the differences between the physical and the metaphysical.
Of course, it's a no-brainer there. But that's not what you or I were arguing. The point was you were in denial of the impact of physical appearances on human beings. You seem to think it has minimal bearing or impact on the human condition relative to decision making viz romantic relations. Or you were at least downplaying it, whereas I was arguing (in paraphrase) that the appreciation of it was that to be cherished and nurtured and above all, embraced for what it is.
Quoting Possibility
Great! There's progress. However, this is once again a confusing ethical treatment of an objectification standard. On the one hand, you seem to be encouraging men to ask questions about aesthetical concerns, yet you admit it perturbs you when and if you're asked.
Quoting Possibility
Okay, you're making progress there. A similar story was that when I was married, at one point in the relationship I told my spouse (and I remember specifically) "you only like/love me for the way I look". This was all in the context of me going through growing pains in the relationship, as well as interacting with an introvert, who seemingly did not care about the 'mind and spirit' part of the mind, body, spirit connection.
And so when you concluded that "...what mattered most to him was how I looked" I completely understand the frustration. But here's the thing, I really don't see women trying to change the stereotype much. But admittingly, at the same time, I couldn't tell you how to be. Meaning, if we (men and/or women) appreciate physical beauty and/or femininity for the sake of itself, what would be considered the intrinsic value there? Sure, to broad-brush it, we should all strive to seek balance in all aspects of the mind-body-spirit 'equasion', and discourage mutually exclusive thinking, but what is the purpose of aesthetics?
Quoting Possibility
Can you elaborate a bit more on that please? Being a so-called sensitive man myself (or a bit more right-brain sided if you like), I hear what you are saying, and feeling. Of course, Maslow said "what you are not you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you" is indeed, seemingly alive and well here. And so, sure, because I'm not you, I don't completely understand. However, what is very intriguing to say the least, is your point "...that a woman's inner world is a reflection (or subset) of a man's."
Men and women are meant to be together. And life is about relationships (friendships, collaborations, colleagues, companions, partners, etc.). And with that, your notion that women's thinking is a sub-set of a man's, through that awareness, only helps to enlighten those who are ignorant (we are all ignorant to a greater or lessor extent) about the many aspects of the human condition. To this end, please share your thoughts... .
Why, I wonder, is it a "no-brainer" to say we're more than "purely/exclusively objective-objects" (whatever that may mean) if we're physical objects as you claim? Are we something in addition to physical objects? Are we non-physical physical objects? Are we physical objects with non-physical souls?
Congratulations, by the way, for successfully hijacking this thread.
CW!
Be cautious not to project too much there Ciceranus LOL. Read what I've been saying. It's a no-brainer, that exclusive objectification of women in a moral way is unacceptable nor something to be valued in an ethical way. But this thread was posted in General Philosophy; not Ethics.
It might be obvious to also say we're both physical and meta-physical creatures, or if you prefer, both concrete thinking beings. So, those are all good questions you have, but I strongly urge you to start another thread. I would be delighted to participate.
So thank you BTW, for unsuccessfully trying to hijack same LOL.
I see. It isn't moral to objectify some physical objects, then, although we must perforce objectify them, since they're physical objects. The objectification of objects is objectionable in certain cases.
That begs the question, why would it be objectional if the object is a material object?
I agree that a lack of self-consciousness can muddy the waters here - there is no ‘right’ answer to this question, but there is an honest one. I’m a believer in increasing awareness, as you probably recall, so the question at the very least focuses her attention on her own inner process. Even if she gives you a canned response or gets defensive, it says much more about her than it does about you. A psychologist would never make an assumption without asking that question - which is my point. It isn’t about getting the ‘right’ answer, but about recognising that she has her own inner process.
I think you and I have already discussed my view on the inaccuracy of logic in relation to human intentions.
I don't claim to understand women, or men for that matter, in terms of inherently irrational sexual relations. But your question seems to be confusing Political objectification with Sexual objectification. Young girls quickly learn, by observation or via the grapevine, what boys are looking for in girls. And what they discover is that boys tend to be analytical about casual sex. By that I mean they typically focus on body parts instead of the whole person. So the girls are merely being pragmatic when they emphasize their best features to make themselves attractive --- meanwhile hoping that their personality will seal the deal for a long term and loving relationship.
A beautiful and successful actress on a talk show was asked about the long slit in her ankle length skirt. And she matter-of-factly answered that she was not well-endowed up top, so she decided to "show some leg" --- to put her best foot forward, so to speak. She didn't seem to object to being Sexually objectified by the "male gaze" of the audience. More recently, a beautiful actress in a skit was analyzing herself in the mirror --- as she wondered why she couldn't hold on to a man. The sensible & practical alter ego in the mirror suggested a boob job. And the skit was written by the flat-chested actress!
However, I suspect that these modern women would not appreciate being Politically objectified as a sex-toy to be used and thrown away, or stored in a closet. Unfortunately, women throughout history have been both Sexually and Politically objectified. In early civilizations, they were basically marketed as a man's "help meet", or as sex slaves, and their value was often judged like a commodity, a camel or a goat, rather than as a partner in a life-long relationship. This interpersonal inequity all too often resulted in abuse or abandonment. So societies were forced to enact political laws of marriage to protect wives & children from spousal trashing. Unequal power/sex relations are common among animals, and seems to be inherent in human nature (dimorphism, psychology, etc). But humans can choose to modify their inherent urges & behaviors in the interest of social harmony.
As your "Burka" note suggested, some absolutist moralizing cultures even went to the extreme of banning all sexual "displays" by females, because they were viewed as temptresses, luring young men astray from sexual chastity. But this complete segregation of the sexes is unnatural, and may result in unsavory covert behavior on both sides. So, modern democratic societies, with egalitarian & romantic ideals, have tried to have their sex and chastity too, by "liberating" women, and trusting men to "keep it in their pants". That's like playing with matches around beautiful fireworks : high risk, high reward??? I'll leave it for you to decide how well that combination of sexual & political liberation is working. :joke:
Sex Differences : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans
Chastity : the ability to resist temptation
Help Mate : a subordinate household worker and associate.
That’s inaccurate, and it was what I was arguing. I made it very clear that physical appearance was a deciding factor in certain circumstances, but less so in others, including romantic relations. When it is the ONLY factor in human relations, that is objectification, and a denial of one’s humanity at the very least.
Quoting 3017amen
I seem to be repeating myself, but I’ll give it another go: there is a world of difference between asking a question about my aesthetic intentions, and commenting on your own aesthetic concerns about my appearance. You’re the one confusing the two.
Quoting 3017amen
So you have a single experience that relates to almost every interaction I have had with males for my entire life. You were in a position to recognise the dissonance between how you saw yourself and how you were treated, and to speak up about it. This is very different to repeated experiences forming your patterns of self-awareness. The ‘frustration’ was something I needed to recognise in my own thoughts, words and actions over many years, and then separate out from my identity. A lot of women don’t get that opportunity.
As an introvert myself, I would disagree that it was a lack of care - more a lack of capacity to connect in the particular way that you expected. But that’s perhaps another discussion.
Quoting 3017amen
You see only what you want to see - it’s the potential you perceive that makes the difference. A stereotype is a cultural agreement - it’s not up to women to change it on their own.
There is no intrinsic value - aesthetics contributes potential information to our predictive distribution of effort and attention in interacting with the world. There is nothing wrong with appreciating physical beauty - but appreciating it in a woman or man ‘for the sake of itself’ IS mutually exclusive thinking, because it implies that the entity is the physical beauty, rather than the woman or man. Physical beauty is only one attribute or aspect of a thinking, feeling person - if you interact with them as if it’s the only one that has value for you, then you objectify that person.
Quoting 3017amen
My point is that women’s thinking is NOT a subset or reflection of a man’s. The reverse is also true, but the prevailing cultural reality, including the many traditions, rituals, customs and messaging systems between men and women in society, imply the universality of patriarchal narratives. This needs to be addressed, and we do that by asking women why - not why they act or dress the way they do, but why they value or choose certain aspects of behaviour or experiences - and giving them an opportunity to question themselves instead of trotting out the patriarchal narratives they’ve been taught to feed into in order to be allowed any agency at all.
We interact with the world believing that our value systems are universal, and it helps us to anticipate events. But it’s only a limited perspective of intention. Life is about developing our relationship with the world (not just with other people), and relating to what makes no sense to us at all, as an indication that we have something to learn about reality beyond our experiences, is how we increase awareness, connection and collaboration. You don’t have to agree with what I value - you just need to recognise that what I value contributes to what it means to be human.
To be it blunty: there is literally nothing wrong with wanting to be fucked or wanting to fuck for the sheer pleasure of it, so long as everyone's in on the game and it doesn't lead to compromizing other mechanisms of a healthy life. Objectification is not a problem in itself. There's something very alluring in being treated as a sheer object, and treating someone else like that in turn, so long as there's transparency on both sides. It's not necessarily easy to do, and requires alot of fine treading to do well sometimes. It's important to recognize when things start to become unhealthy or toxic, or when people exploit asymmetries of sexual power or attraction.
The issues set in when objectification shifts from interpersonal to social or political - when men or women become objects at a level of media portrayal or social policy or whathaveyou. When objectification becomes the dominant mode of social understanding of gender or gender relations. There's a great deal to be said for objecting to that kind of objectification, which exploits the dynamics of interpersonal relations for advertising or power or narrative construction or whathaveyou. Otherwise, if you want to fuck anything that moves, or be fucked by anything that moves, all power to you. Be a slut, just a healthy one, if your psychology allows for it.
I don’t think it’s helpful to distinguish between sexual and political objectification. All that does is permit objectification in sexual relations. Just because a girl changes her aesthetics to direct your effort and attention towards her, it does not follow that she consents to ‘sexual’ objectification - which is valuing a sexual being only as an object to the exclusion of agency. So sexual objectification IS political.
Quoting Gnomon
If you asked her whether she consented to being treated as nothing more than ‘sex on legs’, I’m sure she would object - as an actress, it is her craft, not her appearance, that matters. Seeking the ‘male gaze’ and consenting to be objectified by it are two very different things. Referring to both as ‘objectification’ is muddying the waters, in my opinion.
Quoting Gnomon
This is an interesting interpretation of the skit as supporting sexual objectification. The pragmatism suggests that value systems are a fixed reality, so we must adjust our behaviour to get the most out of our existence within that system. The skit for me shows instead that something is amiss with the system itself when we must ‘correct’ our physical existence to get the most out of our existence within the system. The mirror reflection is the system: the prevailing cultural reality. The point is that we know the woman is more than what this reflection ‘tells’ her. What needs to be ‘corrected’ is not her physical reality, but our cultural reality.
What you’re describing is not objectification, though. If everyone is in on the game, then everyone has agency, whether it’s a casual fuck or a long term relationship. Transparency is about keeping the channels of communication open. If something’s not working for you, you need to be aware that you can do something about it, and that they’ll listen.
Objectification is not the same as responding to sexual attraction or enjoying a ‘freaky fuck with no strings and no commitment’. You can do both of these without objectifying someone, and I agree that it’s about transparency on both sides. Objectification is about eroding or ignoring agency - treating them as an object is failing to recognise them as a thinking, feeling human being with options or a voice.
An object can’t object.
I guess my point is that sometimes you don't want to be treated as a 'thinking, feeling human being'. Like - fuck me and leave and never talk to me again and certaintly don't ask me about my aspirations (because that would be crossing the line). Like, respect my agency by not getting into my personal life, by keeping this sexually transactional (or better, let's respect each other's agency by doing so).
But I get your point - as long as everyone's on the same page, and both (or more!) parties are OK that situation - that one has permission, as it were, to be treated like that, then that's cool. I dunno how to put it - like an agental suspension of agency maybe.
Ah, now there are material objects. Is this a subset of physical objects (the set in which we're included)? If so, what is the distinction between material objects and other physical objects in general; in particular, the distinction between material objects and the physical objects you say we are? Is that distinction related to your claim that we're "more than purely/exclusively objective-objects"? Or are we material objects as well?
Then please explain love-as-attachment cognition. Baby sees mom, mom leaves baby, baby cries? Is the infant objectifying the mother?
Quoting Possibility
I'm not following you there, how is their material agency being denied? (Are they not using their material agency to empower their way of Being?)
Quoting Possibility
Please provide statistics on this. I'd be willing to bet over 50% of romantic relationships begin with some form of physical infatuation before it turned into true love (Eros/Love at first site).
Quoting Possibility
Since you seem to be a very self-aware individual, I would recommend you empower yourself such to appreciate beauty for what it is, and all it could be, instead of projecting the past (dysfunctional) agency into it.
Quoting Possibility
That's a no-brainer, agreed. However, you are in denial of its intrinsic value.
Quoting Possibility
Kind of a paradox there. You keep slipping back into this dysfunctional projection of agency, instead of looking at it for what it is. What it means to be human is that we all objectify each other, rightly and wrongly, because we are all physical material objects. Rightly or wrongly, I would never fall in love with a 300lb woman. If we were not discriminating Beings, passionate romance would not exist. Remember Eros?
Granted, you want to reconcile this love as being a higher love, I get that (mind body spirit). But ontologically, you seem to be unable to make the proper distinctions of material agency and aesthetics.
Otherwise, how, as you say, do we "learn about reality beyond our experiences"?
I agree - casual sex is an unspoken agreement that the ‘relationship’ is only the sexual encounter - but this is not a suspension of agency. I think there’s a difference between a fuck that denies agency and one which respects that you have preferences and choices during the sexual encounter, even if we never speak again after.
Great questions CW. Why don't you start another thread. Call it something like: Ontology and Materialism: Subject-Object. BTW, I tried doing a search on that topic and nothing really came up...so it might be interesting... . It would certainly be interesting to explore the materialists' view of consciousness viz objectification of women/men.
No, the baby is not objectifying the mother, but rather learning that his physical identity is not inclusive of the mother, despite the connection and collaboration. He is learning to recognise and value non-physical connections with the world.
Quoting 3017amen
I don’t even know what you mean by ‘material agency’. When a woman sees her only value in the world as a pretty object for men to play with and use in patriarchal narratives, then her agency is being denied. By directing her own role in these narratives and choosing when and how she is played with, she begins to reclaim what agency she can. But at the end of the day, the problem is that she has been denied agency in the first place. She never has a chance to perceive her value in being other than a pretty object for men to play with.
I'm assuming you're over the age of 25 ie. when the brain is finished developing. If you deny not only your own humanity but someone else's, rather our position above the animals, specifically animal instinct, what is left? A few sounds we call words, a few inventions, shiny lights, tall buildings, and bombs? To some, that is all that distinguishes man from the animals. An object is something to be used or can be used and either exists solely due to the result of or is otherwise subservient to a higher intelligence or process. Until you distinguish man from animal and the mandatory social and moral fabric that comes with such a position the question is a rather moot one. How can an object objectify itself?
Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
Quoting Possibility
Again, no-brainer. Otherwise, you may want to study the history of sex, pornography, Eros, etc. etc. In that case, material agency is that which is being valued. And as such, it's being valued through the women's choice.
Quoting Possibility
If she chose to objectify herself (and was fully aware of her agency), how could she be denying herself agency?
Quoting StreetlightX
If I could interject, maybe a good vocabulary to describe it is the distinction between a subjectivity and agency. In one of @StreetlightX's old threads I posted the following characterisation of what a subjectivity is.
A subjectivity is close to a role a person embodies; a person might be a window shopper, a person might be a wheelchair user, a person might have depression. A role understood as instantiated with possible misfit in a person through their conduct. Every person embodies a spectrum of subjectivities.
I think perhaps the idea of a sexual subjectivity is relevant here; the dance of fantasy and social ritual ascribes a subjectivity to one's partner in the encounter, and one adopts a subjectivity to play a part in the dance. What role each plays may be found more or less agreeable, more or less erogenous, more or less freeing or transgressive, with the moving composition of their partner's desires.
What seems relevant here is the extent to which those subjectivities are negotiated in the encounter, whether it is an agent-agent relation manifesting as a (series of) subjectivity-subjectivity relation( s ), or whether one of the agents is nothing more than the desired subjectivity they could embody.
And his crying is a sign that he/she receives pleasure through objectification, which is part, of the physical phenomenon of Love. But at that level of development, it appears to be exclusively physical. (In the alternative, explain the love you have for an object that is newly born.)
I'm just asking you to define the terms you've decided to use, you know. But if you prefer to avoid doing so, I suppose that's as good a way as any.
The jist of my argument is that no matter how much we try to deny the value of aesthetics, it remains an integral part of the human experience/phenomena-unconsciously. Now I would be more than happy to answer your concerns, but it would hijack the thread. I think you raise very important questions that deserve attention, separate (but not completely) from aesthetics.
(If you would like me to start one, I will... .)
The psychologist wouldn’t necessarily have to ask a question about the exact issue at hand to make a qualified assumption. After having gotten to know his patient he might for example have acquired a better understanding of why she wears high-heeled shoes than she has herself. If he asked her and received the reply “because high heeled shoes are comfortable”, he may have good reasons to disregard that answer altogether.
Quoting Possibility
When asked a question about oneself, “the inner process” that is supposedly revealed is sometimes quite irrelevant to the question. The person might try to think of a clever answer that really has nothing to do with what she has previously thought. That wouldn’t even be false consciousness but fail to express any consciousness at all.
Although there are of course individual reasons why a woman chooses the clothes she wears, we don’t have to disregard general reasons (I’m not saying you are, but your emphasis on individual explanations might be problematic.) The question “why do some women wear sexy clothes?” could be given a general answer that is likely to be true for most of them. It is not much different from asking any other question concerning human behavior.
Quoting StreetlightX
Well said, although I'd say political objectification is linked to sexual objectification in the sense that the former has origins in, and is perpetuated by, in no small part by, the latter. A man who's concerned about his woman's sexual needs, especially if she looks to greener pastures, will, in all likelihood, keep her on short leash lest he become a cuckold or the like; this tendency of men probably spills over into other freedoms a woman can have.
A 'man' who is so insecure and small dicked about his relationship that he thinks of women on leashes and worries about her 'looking for greener pastures' is no man, and should probably fucking hang himself. Sorry but this language is revolting.
It's ironic that back in the day when feminism was all the rage, women's clothes were comparatively more modest than they are now, at a time when much of the freedom they fought for has been achieved.
Just a thought.
Revolting? Damn. I want to move where the women who behave like you describe live. XD
What is your gender/relationship status/type of government just curious?
Yeah good point. I was going to mention that relative to Middle East culture where women's clothing is designed to minimize or discourage sexual objectification. I think, in part, this speaks to the emotional agency baggage that Possibility is trying to argue, only its women's baggage in her case. The downside is that it seems to encourage violence and insecurity among men (aka: male emotional baggage). While in principle, it certainly has its virtues (modesty, vouyerism) I think it is no less abusive than the other extreme... .
I had a brief encounter with a young girl from Morocco a few years ago and she told me some similar stories. But in the Middle East, both sexes must lower their eyes when encountering someone of the opposite sex. Men must be covered from the shoulders to the knees, while women must cover everything except the hands, feet, and face. (Of course, in Catholicism the dress code for Nuns is similar-abuses in the Priesthood is a whole nother in-denial story) :
LOL, I don't know about hanging himself but he should definitely have his man-card revoked, his gold jacket taken away, and be put on probation. :gasp:
EDIT: I take that back. I think the guy should be hung from his toes naked, and the leash that he had on his girlfriend she should take it and whip his pee pee into submission. Now there's real sexual objectification!!
A piece of advice that came too late for me. :worry: :sad: The idea behind lowering one's eyes is to prevent eye contact, a not all too bad thing, from becoming an offensive lecherous stare.
You need not on my account. As I think I said, I don't accept the subject/object distinction. I don't think we're spectators of the world or that there is some "us" as subjects observing other people or things as objects. The questions I asked relate to some problems I think arise from my confusion regarding your use of the words "objects" and "objectification" (or possibly your misuse of them) and not to some urge to explore other matters.
That's being concerned about his desire that a woman must attracted or interested in him. It has nothing to do with a woman's needs. Her concerns, desires and needs do not feature anywhere in this sort of thought.
That's precisely why you should start another thread, because I would make the case that you're wrong :brow:
But if you're scared, I understand.
:up:
:up: Lotta that going around (and on display lately by blue ballers in Blue).
If someone thought that, it betrays
(1) A lack of trust
(2) A lot of insecurity
(3) A willingness to constrain their partner from activities they strongly desire doing to mitigate the insecurities.
In treating someone like that, they make their insecurities their partner's problem; and not in the intimacy expanding sense of mutual exploration - it's pure confinement. Doing so will only hasten the demise of the relationship if they're lucky, or perhaps lead to traumatising the person they (allegedly) love more than anyone else.
Edit: Maybe a starting point for a discussion on monogamy as a social norm, I'll just gesture in that direction with song lyrics -
[i]I want you, and I want you to want me to want you
But I don't need you
Don't need you to need me to need you
That's just me
So take me or leave me
But please don't need me
Don't need me to need you to need me
Cos we're here one minute, the next we're dead
So love me and leave me
But try not to need me
Enough said[/i]
Hey TMF, try to be a little more discreet with your creepy peeping-tom activities :rofl: :joke:
Helpful? That depends on what question you're seeking help with. The OP seemed to be questioning the implicit hypocrisy of a 21st century liberated woman, who overtly directs the attention of her male oppressors to her distinguishing female sexual charms --- objectifying them as-if they are attractive shiny objects like jewelry. They draw attention to their lips with artificial color, mimicking the bright red bottoms of sexually receptive chimpanzees. If they have ample bosoms, they may display them with uplift brassieres or decolletage. Or if they have “hot legs” they may showcase them with short skirts or long slits. The OP assumption seemed to be that true political Feminists would dress like Lesbians, forcing the males to deal with them as equals & agents & subjects.
I'm aware that you have an aversion to making philosophical distinctions in general, but I don't. So, I'll try to distinguish between two legitimate categories of human interaction : natural sexual behavior, and cultural power hierarchies. Obviously, the two are inter-related in practice. Male mammals (e.g. chimps) typically dominate the females in their tribes, both sexually and politically. Bonobos are a rare exception, due in part to less sexual dimorphism. In my prior post though, I accused the OP of failing to distinguish between sexual and cultural objectification. The innate tendency for males to focus on the distinguishing body parts of females, rather than the person as a political agent, would never have become such a hot-button political issue, if humans had never developed a rationalized culture. Reason is analytical, not holistic, but it is motivated by feelings. So modern cultures are all about rationalizing social distinctions : sex, race, religion. Cultures can permit certain behaviors, but they can also prohibit those that are deemed harmful to society. In any case, females, as a class, have been second class citizens since the era of hunter-gatherers. Guess who got the dangerous-but-glorified jobs of warriors and hunters, while their “better halves” stayed home with babies on their hips, and cooked dinner?
Do you think Sex and Politics are functionally the same thing? That seems to be the view of 20th century Feminists. And their homogenized position was understandable, because they were primarily motivated by political injustice for women, and blamed institutionalized male sexual dominance for the prevailing inequity in sex relations. Likewise, many African-Americans tend to lump-together all racial distinctions (e.g. profiling) into one category : political injustice via negative discrimination based on race. Unfortunately, that indiscriminate categorization ignores the majority of white people who treat non-whites with respect. It was mostly high class white people, who provoked a civil war between "brothers" to end an egregious form of dehumanizing discrimination. It was also white people in power, who mandated positive distinctions (affirmative action) to rectify past negative discrimination. And the Women's Lib marchers didn't win the Vote by a direct assault on male privilege, but by appealing to the moral conscience of the men who loved them.
At a high point in human moral history, the women's empowerment movement has succeeded, to a surprising degree, in effecting political reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. But, it has still not completely erased the innate differences that cause fertile females to be sexually attracted to fickle males, and to use their feminine charms and wiles to manipulate them into committing to long-term relationships. Ironically, it seems that the most sexually attractive males are also the “bad boys” (warriors) who are more likely to use and discard women as short-term sex toys. So, the “hypocrisy” implied by the OP, is merely the human foible of trying to conform to two different standards : natural sexual relations, and cultural political relations. Sexual objectification is only as political as you make it.
Perhaps the next political solution will require all women to conceal themselves in burkas and hijabs, in order to offset the aggressive dominating cave-man sexual behavior of those testosterone-fueled males. [ simply neutering the males would leave unwanted females in a quandary ] Or maybe, women will be required by law to carry pepper spray, or to learn martial arts for self-defense of their virtue. Or, if all else fails, a knee to the groin will usually politically neutralize unwanted advances. :cool:
vive la difference : ?used to show that you think it is good that there is a difference between two people or things, especially a difference between men and women
That the thing though: there is no such hypocrisy.
Every woman could walk around naked, want to be looked at sexually, want to cause sexual attraction in any make a present. It would make no difference to what men ought to do. The men would still be wrong to touch, harrasss proposition, leer, etc., the women in question.
Wanting to be looked at or appear attractive does not equal being sexually objectified. The objectification is a separate action, taken by other, in response to the presence of a person.
That's where you're misguided. Remove the word sex for a moment. If your desire is to appear attractive either to yourself or someone else, then you have exercised your right to objectify the object. And that object is you yourself.
It's simple subject-object. Look in the mirror, because that's first person subject-object. (This is your responsibility.)
What choice? Material agency is not being valued in pornography. The object is valued by men in their own narrative, and nothing more. The woman’s choice is to have value as an object, or to not have value at all.
Quoting 3017amen
She didn’t choose to objectify herself, and she doesn’t deny herself agency. She chose to have value, which is the only way to even begin to be aware of your own agency.
Appearing as an object does not equal objectification. Everything appears as an object. If this were equal to objectification, then simply existing and being seen would entail people correctly harassing, leering, touching, grouping, speaking of others as sexual slaves, etc. This is not true.
Of course, male boorishness is Wrong by modern democratic egalitarian standards. That's why the 16th century notion of a "Gentleman" was invoked by upper-class nobles in order to distinguish their superior morality from the uncouth crudeness of the lower classes. Apparently, it was common among commoners for men to grope, and even rape, women without permission. But the nobility was (in theory) held to a higher moral standard. In public, they deferred to their lady's whims, and postponed sex until after marriage. Nowadays, we typically refer to even lower class women as "Ladies" to indicate that they are worthy of respect.
But women in urban ghettos live among politically & economically lower-class men who don't even pretend to be Gentlemen. They accept rough treatment by their "pimp-daddies", because women's lib hasn't yet reached the inner cities. They even refer to other women as "hoes", as a sign of their submission to dominant "thugs". By contrast, some uptown "gentlemen" in male-dominated offices, while outwardly professing nobility, are still motivated by their power-position to treat subordinate women as "objects" and "hoes" --- as long as the dominated women let them get away with it. The parties to such relationships presumably don't think in political or philosophical terms of "objectification", but in practical terms of "I'm horney", or "maybe I'll get a raise or a movie role". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that "what is, is what ought to be"; but that what-ought-to-be is a never-ending quest for a moral Utopia.
Unfortunately, the gender-based consciousness-raising that began over a hundred years ago, still has a long uphill battle to change the thinking and behavior of both men and women. And a majority of people in the world remain un-enlightened by Western Christian or democratic or socialistic morality. Political Laws can enforce outward behavior, but changing hearts & minds is beyond the reach of politics. Even the Chosen People in the Old Testament were accused of all sorts of depravity and immorality. But after constant chastisement by hell-fire prophets, and enduring repeated severe punishment by their Chosen God, some elements of the masses persisted in their evil ways, up to this very day. So, yes, I make a meaningful distinction between ideal political ethics and practical popular morality.
Perhaps, in another thousand years, humanity will reach a higher general moral standard, as depicted in the egalitarian society of Star Trek. But even in that enlightened future age, the women still wear mini-skirt uniforms to differentiate the female from the male soldiers. Why? Could it be a vestigial remnant of old-fashioned Objectification? :joke:
Gentleman : a gentleman is any man of good and courteous conduct.
Thug : primarily male gang-members who flaunt their disdain for the laws and morals of polite society
Gentleman : an effeminate p*ssy-whipped white male
Thug vocabulary
PS___Internet Porn is accepted as morally socially "Wrong", even by those who enjoy "leering" at naked women. But, like illegal and immoral drugs, it is still a major money-maker in our society. Is it wrong to smoke pot? What are we going to do about it? Make war on drugs & sex, or make sure that violations from the moral norm do as little harm as possible? That's the political question.
Is a beauty pageant objectification? If so, is looking beautiful important to you?
Correct and that value is associated with her physical beauty that she chooses to put on display. So she has objectified herself, no?
Then what was her purpose and intention?
No, it is not. Not in the sense that women are appearing looking beautiful.
Yes, in the sense that beauty pagents are cultural/political organisation which assert a women has a specific social value upon her looks.
Her purpose and intention don't matter.
The objectification is coming from the actions of others. In, for example, men who are thinking she is their sexual toy becuase she has some purpose or intention.
Let's say she does a striptease. This does not mean men can leer at her. It does not mean they can wolf whistle. It does not mean it's cool for the men discuss talk about how "she has such a wonderful pussy I'd love to fuck".
If it's not an objectification then why is the judging criteria partially consisting of swimsuits and evening gowns? In other words, brains in a vat would look more beautiful LOL.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
And we have a winner, ding ding ding!! And that value is more or less an aesthetic objective value. Agreed!
They absolutely do. In any relationship it takes two to tango.
Otherwise all you seem to be doing is projecting your frustration with other women who choose to objectify themselves rightly or wrongly. And in this case you clearly have strong feelings that it's wrong.
It's a no-brainer, as a woman, to avoid being a stripper unless your intention is to objectify yourself.
And just so you know I'm equal opportunity. If I choose to be a male dancer I've chosen to objectify myself. And not only will I be judged as such, I run the risk of comments that relate to sexuality.
No where did I mention other women being wrong.
Indeed, when I was talking about a woman's intention or purpose being irrelevant to instances of objectification, I was talking about ANY woman, not just the one I talked about I the example.
My postion here is exactly the opposite of what you seem to think it is: I'm saying it is fine and good for any woman to appear as they wish. That, it in this behaviour, there is no objectification. Strippers are not objectifying themselves.The objectification is in how others are responding to this behaviour or not.
What if there were no strippers at all, who then is the responsible party to sign the social contract?
What exactly is the point meant to be here? My comment about strippers was about what it true when there are strippers. I was using it as an example to describe how even actions or intentions we might consider most provocative do not amount to objectification.
I'm not sure why you are speaking of contracts here. Contracts aren't invoved in relations of objectification or not. Indeed, they are utterly irrelevant to sexual behaviour or relations of any kind. One cannot contract their ability to refuse sexual activity or object to lewd comments away.
The law of contracts simply states: a promise for a promise. As a stripper or male dancer the individual signs up to objectify themselves. If in this case it happens to involve sexuality, then that's what you signed up for...get it? Am I missing something?
Yes, you are not getting something.
When a stripper chooses to give you a sexy dance, chooses to make you feel attraction and sexual pleasure, it is not permission for anything else. It does not mean it is okay to talk about how nice the stripper would be to fuck with your friends. It does not mean it is okay to grope. It may not even mean it is okay to leer (after all, there are different tones of looking). Permission to see and enjoy the sexy dance is not an okay to anything else.
And to think otherwise is objectification (entirely from you!) , for it is to take the stripper in question beyond the bounds of what they chosen to do, give you a sexy dance, and insist they must also be or do all these other sexual things to you(despite the stripper having not chosen to partake in those at all).
And what political or social contract precludes that response from other's (men) that bothers you?
Nothing from a contract, but the ethical obligation not to treat people like they are one's possessions. You don't do that shit becuase it's harmful to others. You aren't respecting their sexual boundries.
Even (Or maybe even especially, given their proximity to sexual interest) strippers.
But if you're in a public restroom and the woman in the next stall to you says that your shit stinks should you take offense to it?
Are they disrespecting your personal space? If so, I would suggest holding your shit until you get home. That way it stays private.
Point is, the moment you sign on to be the stripper, you have to put your big girl pants on and take personal responsibility...
It's the woman who chooses the clothes, it's the woman purchasing the clothes, it's the woman who dons the clothes, it's the woman who has a motive in all of the above.
If they were implying some scatological sexual interest, sure.
Smell? Unlikely, restrooms are supposed to be shitted in and be stinky. It's not harmful in the same way. Someone pointing out you shits are stinking and annoying isn't turning you into a sexual object. Nor is having stinky shits turning anyone else into are sexual object.
The stripper is not responsible for the monstrous reactions of objectfiction from anyone watching. Watchers have a responsibility to understand her as person and respect her sexual boundaries (yes, even as she is stripping for them). They must respect she is not just an object for them to use and absue however they want.
For wearing the clothes, yes.
This is not the objectification.
The objectification is in the actions of others, the leers, the a lot whistles, th3 comments, etc. any of which were chosen by the objectfier.
After much thoughtful consideration, I've come to the unhappy conclusion that I'm creepy alright but somehow I never got down to being a peeping tom. Strange. Thanks for the light-hearted comment though. Much appreciated. :smile:
Correct. She's only responsible on how she reacts to it. But as TMF just alluded to, putting yourself in that position opens up the door for all sorts of things.
Another simple analogy is the star football player. If he's booed, spit at, or otherwise an object of hate and personal attacks, should he quit, or rationalize that it's all part of the job. And if it's all part of the job, isn't that what he signed up for?
Of course it is...
I was only kidding my brother! Your point about discouraging voyeurism is well taken. Love you man thanks for the thread... !
But it doesn't. Women get this shit all the time, not just when their stripping. This doesn't happen because women so one particular thing or another, it happens because then men in question don't respect women as people. The door is always open because men take a woman's mere existence to be a sexual object.
Neither, he should recognise those other players have violated their ethical obligations, if the comments in question are specifically harmful for one reason or another. And that the others should be admonished and possibly sanctioned for failing un their reposiblities to others (this is why sports have code of conduct regarding sledging, racial vilification, etc.).
Just because jerks will be jerks so and monsters will be monsters does not make thise actions just "The way the world works."
In a modern society the two terms blend into irrelevance. You have criminals and law abiding citizens albeit some foul mouthed. Unwanted touching is assault. Simple as that. As a denizen of this world you are partly responsible for 'how it works' and acknowledging humanity as a flawed species that requires teaching and occasional punishment to function in a proper society is the key.
Gosh where is all this angst coming from... Honey not all men think the way you think they think. Both men and women are sexual beings. Is there extremism in everything, you betcha. Do some men marry women just for a steady piece of ass, I couldn't tell you but if that's what you're implying I'm not sure what I can say to change your mind.
Unfortunately you're being too idealistic. There is no political or social contract that precludes freedom of speech, at least here in America. We are free to speak, and be who we want to be. And we take all the responsibility that goes along with it ( good, bad or ugly).
This doesn't really describe my sexual interactions. I meet someone, go on a few dates, have sex, then maybe it moves forward a little, the infatuation wears off, and then things end. Did I really care about that person? Not terribly, but how could I after a few weeks? Were they just a warm sexual object? No, that wouldn't do them justice either. They were an object of attraction, but also a sincere effort at a relationship was being made. I think we both wanted something lasting, but, alas, not everyone is The One. There was no pretending. It was just two adults trying to form a lasting connection, neither of whom believing that love is required before sex.
Relationships have varying depth, and some come and go quickly, but I don't equate my best efforts at relationships with with what you describe, which sounds like lonely alley cats bumping into each other just to feel the warmth of another body, with no thoughts of ever seeing one another again.
My point wasn't that all men do this, but that some do. Objectification isn't limited to women who act "provocatively." These men will do it to any woman. Choosing not to be a stripper isn't a solution to the problem.
Nor was I talking about marrying for a piece of ass. Being attracted to someone ass and then forming a relationship with them, marrying them, etc. is perfectly fine. A great ass is a fine reason to be attracted to someone. As is being a sexual relationship. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be in a relationship because you like how a person looks or the sex you have with them. Neither of those are objectification.
I wasn't talking about freedom either. My point was about how the men objectifying understand women and how this constitutes a material social relation. One might suppose people are free to speak however they want. Objectification would still be objectification. The men in question would still be responsible for doing it. I'm not talking about some fantasy land in which no men objectify or even proposing this is likely to happen. It's only that men are responsible for these actions. Women don't get objectified because they exist and are attractive. Some men choose to understand they are their property for one sexual exploit or another. (obviously, I think these ought not happen too, but this is a seperate question to how the objectification occurs).
No.
Seriously, if she is physically beautiful, she should not have to hide her beauty in order to be treated as a human being. And if she chooses to display her beauty in order to accumulate sufficient value to enable her to make choices for herself, then she is still a human being - it does not entitle anyone to treat her as an object, as someone with no choice in what happens to her. That some men will treat her as an object is not something she needs to just take with the job.
Quoting 3017amen
No, it isn’t. A star football player signed up to play football - he’s paid (a disproportionate amount, mind you) for his ability with certain skills and techniques as much as his fitness and agility, and a star player is also respected for this, even raised to ‘god-like’ status, much more than he is vilified for failing to deliver. But the idea that being subject to hate and personal attacks should be accepted as ‘part of the job’ - any job - is disgraceful in itself. It’s not something that any human being should accept as part of their job. Here in Australia, we’ve had to address the issue of racially motivated slurs and personal attacks on star football players. It is not part of the job - he should be able to do his job without being treated as less than human.
To acquire economic and/or social value.
:up:
Thank you Hanover. That is a sort of in-the-trenches, existential view of reality. But a harsh reality nonetheless. And one salient point I was making, so thank you for that contribution.
Ironically enough, that describes many of mine. And it certainly supports the idea in some fashion, that both men and women objectify themselves. Rightly or wrongly.
And that value was what, to objectify her/himself? Logically, there's no other conclusion. Care to do a logical deductive syllogism?
(The objectification was a means to an end.)
I think you have to get at the phenomenal experience itself. What about wearing scantily clad clothing makes a person have the status of being "objectified" automatically?
Indeed Schop1 ! And the phenomenal experience is the physical attractiveness (or unattractiveness) of the object itself.
Sorry to interrupt, but common sense is seemingly being overlooked here...
The definition TMF gave was about dehumanization and disavowing the humanity of others. So I saw others speak of agency here. So if I guess we say that to not objectify is recognize their agency, and to objectify is to not recognize their agency, can't someone be scantily clad, be physically attractive, and still see their agency? I don't see the problem.
That makes no sense. You seem to want your cake and eat it too. Meaning, you seem to be saying if I'm a race car driver, and I get hurt in an accident, that it's the fan's fault who were cheering me on. Along with intrinsic value, you are now missing the point about taking personal responsibility.
Look, I get the whole systemic thing and the abuses, but there is an existential thing called volitional existence. And that rightfully assumes taking responsibility for your own choices. So when you put your self in those positions of blatant objectification, well then, you get objectified.
Why can't you accept the fact the we live in a material (and immaterial) world? Let both of them work for you. Take responsibility and empower yourself. Look good, feel good, and be smart and intelligent. (There's nothing more attractive than a beautiful sexy woman who is smart and intelligent who knows who she is, what she wants, and is fun loving. Don't let men manipulate you.)
Agreed. But we’re not talking about a psychologist who knows his patient, or even a lay person who knows the person. We’re talking about someone making unqualified assumptions about why one woman is wearing high-heeled shoes based on external observations and a prevailing cultural reality.
Quoting Congau
FWIW, I disagree that a psychologist would disregard her answer altogether. There is always a reason why she gives a particular answer - even if it isn’t accurate - it provides information about what she values, fears and ignores. But that’s getting off topic...
Quoting Congau
Again, we’re not referring to an answer to a question so much as how that woman is treated or judged as a result of assumptions that may be inaccurate. If you’re aware that the answer you’ve assumed may not be accurate, and that this woman may in fact have a range of reasons why she wears clothing you perceive as ‘sexy’, that’s very different to disregarding her answer altogether.
What boat did you just get off of? That's not reality. This is basic psychology 101. Learn coping skills. Life is like that boat. You can't control the weather, but you bet your ass you better prepare for the worst.
If you want to live on an idealistic island, or if you know of one, please sign me up! Again, don't let men manipulate your thinking. Despite the odds, empower yourself. Make the choices that are more likely to achieve health and well being.
Look we all get discriminated against at some point in time. Whether it's age, looks, education, ethnicity, the human condition can suck. I have my own issues to deal with as a man. But you seem to be saying you have no choice in the matter. It takes two to tango.
I don't follow this. If the job description is that you will present yourself as an object for men, then that is just something you have to take with the job. If you don't like that job description, then you just don't take the job.
I think it's clear that the job description for the stripper is that you're going to be asked to present yourself as an object for sexual arousal where you'll be expected to gyrate in front of men so that they can see your body as you move about. I'm not judging the decision to accept that job, but that is in fact the job. It's also sometimes the job of the stripper to provide lap dances where the gyration leads to direct physical arousal. I agree completely that no woman is required to be treated as an object, but there are certain jobs where the woman is asked to do exactly that, which means she can choose to take that job or leave it.
Why can't someone hire a woman to be treated as an object if that is what they both want? Doesn't the woman have the right to contract to be leered at, groped, and treated as sub-human if that's what she wants?
Agreed Schop1. That's called material agency. I believe one should rejoice in their material agency, or physical beauty. Sure there is going to be, in this case, pathology associated with anything that involves human's (as well as the pluses and minuses of being a man/woman-discriminatory behavior). We all have our cross to bear. I think you get it.
To harp on the existential angst of the human condition is what Possibility/Widow and others keep focusing on. I just don't see how one can escape objectifying the object (the double standard is alive and well). When we objectify our bodies by clinging to virtuous ideals (Eros, beauty contests, romantic love, the new born baby/object, sculpture, art, etc.), we applaud it. When we objectify the same by choosing pathology, we denounce it (as it should be).
I think, once again, this tendency to dichotomize is rearing its head. Sure, I'm dichotomizing myself ( I'd like to call it parsing) self-awareness over the inescapable world of aesthetic's, but drawing the distinctions and associated virtues/vices is the point.
We indeed have physical agency, and metaphysical agency. No Brainer. Each has its role to play.
First of all, presenting yourself in a way that causes sexual arousal in another is not necessarily permitting objectification, nor is it self-objectification. Anyone in this position can have a sense of agency, so long as they are continually aware of themselves as more than an object.
The assumption is that a woman in this position wants to be treated as an object, or that she is fully aware that she may be treated as an object - neither of which may be an accurate assessment of a woman’s agency or self-awareness. You can only ascertain this by asking her questions and listening to her answers.
@Congau was right in saying that her answers may not be accurate, but they do still give an indication of her self-awareness and/or sense of agency. Two women may work at the same strip joint, and may even perform the same act, but have completely different reasons why. Her reasons - or how they are expressed - may also change dramatically over time. The same goes for two women at a bar in short skirts and plunging necklines. One woman might be unaware of any other way to be of value to a man, and the other might be specifically looking for a casual sex partner. And you would not be able to tell which is which by looking at their legs.
I don’t believe that women choose to be treated as an object or as sub-human, even if they choose to cause sexual arousal.
It's true the thought of debating such old chestnuts fills me with a kind of dread. Next you'll be threatening me with quotes from Descartes. Vade retro, satana!
Ha! Embrace your fears!! (Where's Poetic Universe when you need him... .) Or better yet, maybe some Freudian-speak would pass muster here... !
She didn’t choose to objectify herself, and she doesn’t deny herself agency. She chose to have value, which is the only way to even begin to be aware of your own agency.
— Possibility
Then what was her purpose and intention?
— 3017amen
Possibility-To acquire economic and/or social value.
Let's test your argument using your words and logic:
If I objectify myself, it will add economic/social value
To add economic/social value, I can be a stripper
Therefore, if I objectify myself, I can be a stripper
Is that a valid argument? If not, please revise to make those propositions sound. Otherwise, it appears that stripping (objectification) was a means to obtain economic/social value.
Your first premise is incohrent.
If she chooses to partake in displaying a sexy dance for others, it is not an act of objectification. Others are meant to see and enjoy the dance. In the respect, it is not dehumanizing but rather the opposite: she affirming her own agency and will in doing the sexy dance and being seen doing it. (in this context, rhe act of stipping would only be dehumanising if she was something againist her wishes as a sexual being. This happens plenty too--i.e. cocerion to strip, either out of economic concerns or social pressure from bosses-- but this is a different situation and is an objectfiction of the social syestem or the person coercing her to strip against her will ).
Objectification isn't about obtaining economic or social value. It's about the relationship of an individual's agency and will to how others treat them.
So, all actions are permissible unless explicitly stated? Do I need to set the ground rules for every interaction, or can I simply expect you to treat me as a human being, given that I am a human being? Should a sign stating “We will not tolerate groping or leering” be placed at every coffee shop entrance, too? Does it need to be placed at the entrance to a doctor’s office? Or is the sign necessary only if the doctor is female?
I understand what you’re trying to say, but objectification is not a narrow view of purpose - it’s a narrow view of intention. It isn’t just that his only value is to address your health concerns, it’s that he is otherwise subject to your will.
Absolutely. It is possible to value someone for their appearance without treating them as if they exist purely for your aesthetic appreciation or physical use, and have no other intentions.
@3017amen is trying to distinguish between a material or physical ‘agency’ and a metaphysical one, as if an object has agency. Aesthetic appreciation is not a denial of agency, but it is not a ‘different kind’ of agency, either.
Likewise, it is possible for a woman to be scantily clad or even naked, be physically attractive, and expect you to recognise her agency, metaphysical or otherwise - to treat her not as if she chose to be your pretty plaything, but as if she is here for her own reasons, the consequence of which is that you get to appreciate her beauty and movement for your own reasons.
Yeah.. I agree I guess. I don't see the problem.
I think the way TMF phrased it leaves this kind of a moot point. I really don't understand the debate, honestly. However, I can think of way more interesting ways that the phenomenal experience of attraction causes problems. Purely looking at phenomenal/social experiences:
What is physical attraction anyways? Is it cultural or universal? In other words, can people be taught to find what was originally considered not attractive to be attractive with enough time and cultural cues?
Why is it seen that squishy parts are considered pleasing in some areas but not in others? Is evolutionary biology too reductionist and "just so"?
These are all more interesting than the OP because the OP assumes a lot of things like a) what is attractive is universal b) being partially or fully naked means objectification is taking place. Both may be false. Why start with these assumptions? This is just taking what is culturally (or pop-culturally) given and then running with it, which is jumping past the philosophically interesting parts...
Do you think it’s true, as I have read over the last decade, that there are more women than ever, which doesn’t mean it’s a lot, of different racial groups who strive to look like western women, to the point of having surgery done on their face and removing certain features? This would seem to indicate an ideal look. If true then what was once cultural is now subverted by a homogenous look perpetuated by the apparent success and happiness of western women. Just what is the “ look” of western women suggesting.
I think we are assuming too much on aesthetics. It's more about keeping up with the Jones's perhaps? As I said to Possibility:
Quoting schopenhauer1
In other words.. we may buy too much in the narrative of our own cultural practices of what is physically deemed attractive.
It's too easy to buy into "just-so" theories of physical attraction. Let's say we all valued what many think are ugly? Is it universal or cultural? Perhaps it has been cultural all the way but we then analogize through cultural cues made up some time by the Greeks or the Middle Age Romantics, or by pop-science's tendency to overgeneralize the human experience to other animals.. I don't know.. This could be totally wrong too but I'm just throwing out ideas to shake us out of the mindset that big breasts, slender waist, slightly bigger hips, ample buttocks, symmetrical face with certain proportioned features are what are indeed universally pleasing and attractive. Maybe it is.. but maybe we can't even get out of the whole scheme itself if it was indeed cultural because it's too ingrained.. Maybe it's taken as a given physiologically/biologically when indeed it was cultural all along.. maybe a combination of both..
It's hard to play objective detective with our own species being so culturally driven (enculturated).
Well, interesting ideas.. That's what I'm getting with my posts to Possibility and 3027amen.. How much of this is cultural.. and how much of it is due to very ingrained cultural ideas (stuck in there somewhere back in time...)?
Someone mentioned roles and subjectiviites, I think it was @fdrake. Perhaps people early on are playing roles.. The male who takes an extra few seconds to stare at a scantily clad woman walking down the street is playing the role of a male who is supposed to take an extra few seconds to stare at a scantily clad woman down the street.. The origin has been lost in time.. both in broader culture and that person's actual biographic life as to when they picked up on this cue.. Pop-culture says that staring came during puberty.. I don't know.. It could be that the cultural cue is that during puberty you are supposed to start looking harder at certain physical cues (like the scantily clad woman). It is all so intermixed, one couldn't even parse out the cues from the actual "biology" and then one misattributes it to biology.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It probably does develop during puberty. And puberty is a confusing period. Many men still stare without, I suspect, any understanding of why they do it. Initially it may have helped in bonding with other male friends. I suspect that not many men stare when they’re alone like they do when they’re with other males.
Yep, but you bring up the point.. the habit of a few seconds of staring that started to bond with male friends becomes just the habit of staring a few extra seconds. The point is the mystery of its real origins. Pragmatically, one can argue that the outcome is to bring the person to a state of habits of being attracted or even habits of attraction. It's oddly very behaviorist if looked at in this regard.
I have to say that there have been moments when crossing a busy street at a crossing and there are three lanes of traffic waiting, halfway across the street I almost forget how to walk naturally, thinking all eyes of the drivers waiting are on me. Because I’m concentrating so much on “walking naturally” I don’t look up to see if they are actually watching me. It’s the idea of the staring that does it to me. So there is something perceived as very powerful in the stare, even imagined, of others that affects us.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It’s possible that starring is primitive way of possessing.
Yeah very interesting point.. The gaze and what one wants to present and signal to others and be signalled by others.. It's all playing roles.
An interesting point about staring or the gaze is having your photo taken. Most people feel some anxiety. Some manage a practised pose but others go to pieces. It’s like a challenge to the idea of yourself, or as you suggest, the role you imagine you successfully present to the world.
But going along the theme of habits.. this itself would be habit one formed at some point. This habit of possessing through staring is itself a role, something that is played out that one learned or picked up or is considered an expectation of some sort.. Again, just proposing some ideas here other than "this is biological".. scantily clad X female means X male stares.. but is that just some cultural thing picked up? It's almost the most pop-cultural of pop-cultural tropes.. I think of a ZZ Top music video or something :lol:.
Yes, because one usually may not think of how one poses for others.. but photos make it the very thing one must focus on. How do you present yourself for the other? How is one being perceived? It becomes another role. One is natural when one is not hyper-aware of how one looks for the other, but rather is in the moment.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I might just walk back a bit on the primitive way of possessing.
It’s possible that being stared at challenges my subjective confidence in what and who I am. It’s a challenge of sorts. In adolescent, that period of confusion and insecurity, staring reverses that, don’t you think, it challenges the world to dare challenge me. Most staring seems to be done by men, and in the beginning it’s done at girls, not so often older women. It’s an easy way to build up a fragile ego or sense of self.
If you’ve ever been up close to two men just before they fight, the staring is incredibly fierce and concentrated.
It could be. It's playing a role or sending signals or both. In a society where one believes in alpha males, and that alpha males "get the girl" then if one wants to be an alpha male and get the girl one sends the signal by staring or "possessing" as you stated. Similarly, if one believes in alpha males, and alpha males "win the fight" then if one wants to be an alpha male and win the fight, one sends signal by staring. It's ironic that we analyze this as if it is natural rather than roles and signals one picks up in broader ideas in society.
Quoting schopenhauer1
When would roles and signals not be natural? Unless culture has warped them so much that their origins are no longer clear, or that culture has created alternative meanings as a way to explain current norms, or to fit ideological hopes. Like if men stopped staring at women relationships between the two would be improved, when in fact it has very little to do with women.
Well, natural in terms of biological.. instinct rather than cultural.
Quoting Brett
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but the way I interpret it, you are saying that the male is just playing the role of the one who must stare at the woman, rather than someone who instinctually stares at the woman.
I’m thinking that the males stares at males and females. The staring is used in many different ways, but what lies behind it is not always clear. I’ve had instances on the street when there’s been potential trouble and one of the protagonists will turn to me and demand, “What are you starring at!” Once again it’s like a challenge from me, even though it was not my intention,
The staring is a role males are involved with and women are among those, but not the only ones, he stares at.
Edit: by the time he’s a mature male he no longer knows why he stares at women.
Yep. That makes sense. It's a weird combination of social cues and the intertwining in personal narrative and habit formation.
I think that has to be the assumption, right? Of course, laws have to be included in all of this. But if I work at Walmart, for example, I should assume that the customers are allowed to do anything that isn’t illegal or against company policy. Therefore, a certain level of rudeness, for example, should be expected. If I can’t handle people being rude to me, maybe I shouldn’t take the job. That doesn’t make it ok to be rude, but it’s the business owner’s right to tolerate, and expect it’s employees to tolerate, certain behaviors. And it’s my responsibility, as an employee, to do so.
Quoting Possibility
Well, what that means is different for different people. Besides, their are some professions that basically do require it’s employees be treated without dignity or respect at times. Consider brothels, or a bunny ranch, where males have fetish requests that the female is expected to provide. Some fetishes can be very dehumanizing.
Quoting Possibility
I think you can apply some common sense to these situations. Unwanted groping is illegal, but can I grope my wife in a coffee shop if I want to? It probably will depend on how the owner feels about it. But regardless, signs of this sort only make sense in certain locations; those where the employee/customer interactions present the risk of those actions occurring.
Quoting Possibility
Not sure I understand what you mean. Intent only matters if acted upon, right? I’m guessing you mean that I shouldn’t have “bad intentions” when interacting with someone? But what exactly are bad intentions? Trying to get him to do what I want? For example, I don’t really care if the doctor finds it dehumanizing to have to give me a prostate exam. If I need one, it’s his job to fulfill my heath needs. Just like I don’t care if the stripper finds it dehumanizing for me to stare/leer at her tits. If that’s what arouses me, it’s her job to fulfill that need.
Now, the situation is different if we are just two strangers who pass on the street. In these interactions, there is no responsibility towards each other. And again, anything illegal is obviously considered wrong to do. But consider this scenario. I see a scantily clad woman. I have no way of knowing what her intentions or reasons for dressing this way are. However, I assume that it’s because she wants to draw attention to herself. So I stare at her. If my assumption of her intentions is correct, she will have no issue, but if I’m wrong she will. But how can I rightfully be blamed for assuming incorrectly? In both instances I’m objectifying her, but in the one case the objectification is welcomed. So objectifying can’t be wrong in an absolute sense. The suggestion that I ask before assuming seems ridiculous. “Excuse me, mam, I noticed your breasts are hanging out of your shirt. Would it be alright if I stared at them?” Even the women that want this to happen wouldn’t admit it, and those who don’t would be just as offended by my question as the act. It’s a catch-22 situation. The only way around this that I see is for only women who want sexual attention from males to dress scantily. Dressing a certain way is never permission for being touched, but exposing body parts in public seems to invite observing.
An interesting tangential discussion.
Quoting Brett
I think for the most part, we are unaware of why we do most things that we do ‘naturally’. I agree that most constitute an unspoken cultural reality that has been learned through mimicking and group association, and that much of the reason why men stare at women has very little to do with (ie. consideration for) the women themselves.
But that’s kind of the point. The process of developing a male identity seems to assume that he is an exclusive entity: an individual in opposition to other systems, striving to overcome (survive) and to dominate, either by destructive or creative means. This puts his intentions in conflict with a reality that recognises the agency of other systems in relation to his own as part of a wider relational structure.
Disregarding the agency of women in certain interactions is part of a larger cultural construct that enables some individuals or cultural groups to believe they just might ‘succeed’ in maximising autonomy, power and influence. That’s my take.
I actually did that once, in New York. With men rather than women. I had a conversation with a group of chipendales after I was invited to their show by a female friend. I was hid at the back, for normally no man is allowed in the audience. The boys would come onstage playing a cowboy, a firemen, these sorts of outfits, and they would end up in thong, slightly short of full frontal. The girls were hysterical, screaming and inserting banknotes in various parts of the chipendales' bodies, fighting off one another to reach out to the chipendales...
I felt uncomfortable at first and started to laugh manically. Then I had a few shots and felt better. I started to wonder about the motivations of the performers, and casually asked one after his show. Found out it's quite simple: 1) it pays some 300-400 a night, which for a 20 something is pretty good money. 2) you get to be adulated by hords of girls, and that's good ego boosting. 3) you can have sex every night if you want to. Their seductive power is totally validated every night.
So yes, he was seeking objectification for self-validation. I guess chipendales never get gloomy about "nobody likes me" -- they know they are amongst the most desirable men in the city. And I must admit they had flawless bodies.
Not every body can do it either. E.g. the bar tender in that joint wanted very badly to go onstage but was yet to convince the boss to give him a chance, so he was doing much body building and taking dance lessons, and he would watch the shows every night with stary eyes... :-)
The point is that objectification can help build up a sense of agency. The two are not mutually exclusive. In final analysis, many people would rather be desired, than not be desired.
Quoting Possibility
I suppose what I’m driving at is that this applies to both male and female.
I feel that the idea of objectifying is a bit too simplistic. The idea of the stare being a challenge, that it challenges the confidence you have in the role you play, or who and what you believe you are, (like the anxiety in front of the cameras), draws attention to your own authenticity. It takes great confidence, or presence of mind, to maintain the role under pressure.
It seems a bit too easy to shrug this off as being objectified. Isn’t it avoidance of some truth thrown at you? Dressing up, playing the part, the role you chose, and then the challenge who’s intention is not to question it but ends up doing just that: the self doubt, the wobbling of the ego, all induced by your own fragile sense of self. It’s so much easier to project the cause for doubt on others.
Quoting Becky
That may not be true. I guess we need to know what is meant by power.
It’s not about whether or not I can handle people being rude to me. It’s that it isn’t ok to treat people like dirt. At Walmart, you get paid to facilitate a sales transaction. So, although we can expect people to be rude in many interactions and many different jobs and we need to handle it when it does, that is not an invitation or permission to be treated like we’re less than human.
Rudeness happens. I’m not outraged by a look or a leer or a stare - that’s not objectification. If I dress to attract the male gaze, then I’ll appreciate you looking. What I won’t appreciate is you groping, or expecting anything more than the opportunity to look.
Quoting Pinprick
Tell me something: can you think of another profession that requires its employees to be treated without dignity or respect? A profession that isn’t related to women and sex? And a fetish is only dehumanising if it isn’t a request. Men make a request, and a woman willing to provide is matched to that request. It is objectification if the man or the employer doesn’t feel he needs to request it.
Quoting Pinprick
I’m not talking about you groping your wife, but about customers groping the employees.
Quoting Pinprick
It’s not about bad intentions. By narrow view of intentions, I’m talking about the doctor’s intentions or the stripper’s intentions - or did you not think they had any? Do you think a doctor wants to grab your balls? Of course not - his intention is to help people stay healthy, to contribute productively to society, to make the next payment on his yacht, to get his kids through private school, etc. If that means he has to grab your balls, then he will. It isn’t about whether a stripper feels dehumanised by letting you stare at her tits - she knows what she’s being paid for. It’s about whether she lets you grab them or any other part of her body. It’s about assuming that she really wants you to do whatever you want with her.
Quoting Pinprick
Observing, yes. Again, it’s not about the staring. Of course, if she’s trying to have a conversation with you and you’re staring at them, then she has every right to assume that you’re objectifying her, because you are probably not listening to what she’s saying. But I don’t see staring at exposed breasts in itself to be objectifying. If she’s scantily clad, she wants someone to notice. She just may not want anything more from you in particular, and you should respect that. What she’s ‘putting out there’ is a visual feast, not a sexual object to play with. Wanting attention is not the same as wanting sexual attention. So she’s allowed to say ‘go away’ if you try to hit on her. This is the distinction I’m trying to clarify.
Quoting Possibility
I just reread this and realised that you are agreeing with something I didn’t say.
When you say “learned through mimicking and group association” it suggests something people were introduced to or taught. But in fact I mean it already existed in people, that it’s something we have done over time. It might be that it’s a male thing and that there were very good reasons for it, I don’t know.
Secondly you inserted (consideration for) in the sentence about the reason men stare at women. That changes my meaning. It’s not that the staring has very little to do with consideration for women, and therefore objectifying them, because that suggests they are purposely doing it to indicate a lack of consideration for women when in fact it means the stare has very little to do with women. The women are caught up in something that exists apart from them.
I fail to see how wearing what are described as sexually provocative clothes is not [self] objectification.
That said, women have full rights as to whom or what kind of man they wish to attract sexually.
It's not possible to make the point that women dressing in certain ways bespeak a hypocrisy. A man who's a body builder would surely want people to see him as more than just hypertrophied muscle. Nevertheless, being a body builder does reveal a person's worldview - what s/he values.
Quoting Pinprick
Indeed, you're right. I guess the problem of sexual objectification is owed, in part, to managing complex personalities - there's the intellectual side that contemplates such things as rights, equality, personal space, self-worth, and a whole lot more of things that make being thought of as a sex-toy abhorrent and then there's the "dark" side that would love nothing better than to turn on every guy/girl in the room as the case may be.
Quoting 3017amen
:smile:
Well, why does a woman wear revealing attire? To arouse, turn-on, men, no? When men get a boner, women become objects [of sex], right? That's what I mean.
No. I feel like I’m going around in circles here, but a woman wearing revealing attire is not necessarily doing so to arouse or turn men on in general. It could be simply to get a man’s attention - and that man may not be you. It does not follow that she wants to be treated as an object, even by the man whose attention she craves. Wanting attention is not the same as wanting sexual attention, and wanting sexual attention is not the same as wanting to be objectified.
And when a man gets a boner, any woman involved does NOT become an object, of sex or anything else - she is still a person with agency. Your boner is your responsibility, not hers.
Quoting Brett
I agree with Brett here. Men might stare at women as some sort of habit formed. That habit is one which is a trope of male culture in the broader culture, started somewhere in the mists of Western history or civilization itself.
I find it quite interesting because the trope is really giving the woman power not the man. He learns that staring longer is some sort of signal (if the woman notices). I'm not sure how much the magnetism of the scantily clad woman is really the case- as if it is a knee-jerk reaction that has no culturally learned component (this is where I may disagree with Brett, I don't know). There has been a sort of learned response, making it seem as if magnetism.. as if Roy Orbison's "Pretty Women" is just a "truism of nature". But perhaps not so. Anyways, If the woman notices the extra long stare, she might get an ego-boost herself. There is the power. The male provides the ego-boost, while thinking he's "getting something" from the gaze (as Brett mentioned, some sort of association with possession perhaps, even if not acted upon). Ironically, the male gives power to the female by staring. If men stopped staring those few extra seconds (or more in less nuanced males), the power of the physical signal would be diminished and even disappear. How did this even happen to begin with? Tropes is my theme here and I'm sticking to it. The culture has simply created the tropes for the two sides to use to allow physical attraction to even take place in the first place.. I am trying to move beyond evolutionary psychology as just this blunt hammer for everything related to sexual attraction and relations.
A lot of the time it's other driven. If the male is particularly groomed to be an alpha-type (assuming that's even a trope in the culture to begin with), they might think the woman will notice the extra few seconds he taking to stare, and then make the decision to make another pass his way so that he can send more signals, and she can send more signals and on and on. In other words, the lusty alpha male mentality might think themselves magnetic and charming enough (with the stare at the beginning) to "get" the woman to pay attention to him as well. Anyways, my point is that a lot of this goes beyond the simple ideas of "objectification", etc. It's a lot to do with tropes one picks up and signals one consciously or unconsciously learns from habit/culture to send.
Which brings me to another point.. What makes something physically attractive? Is it "you know it when you see it?"
Indeed, it's a fair transaction. But the point is that being an object of desire is sometimes a boost to one's agency, rather always necessarily undermining it.
Agreed.
A man's sexual/intellectual/nutritional/etc. attention?
Quoting Possibility
Indeed, that doesn't follow because a woman may just want to display her goods in a manner of speaking without wanting to actually sell them to anyone but the fact that she's spreading out her merchandise for men to see suggests that women, let's just say, know what men want.
Quoting Possibility
You can say that again! :smile:
I thin it's going around in circles because you need to get a handle on what "objectification" means here. You and Possibility are both correct if your definition is "To display one's physical attributes to get other's attention, mainly for purposes of attraction, sometimes for a particular person, but often times with unintended consequences from others". That is your definition.. what about it makes it philosophically interesting? I'm trying to say one way is the tropes we have created culturally to even make that a phenomena. I'm also trying to move beyond evolutionary psychology or psuedo-scientific explanations for both what counts as attractive and habits of attraction or being attracted to someone.
Well, what definition do you suggest we all compy with?
I'm fine with the one I just wrote there. It seems to be a summarization of what you're trying to say, no? But anyways, what about that definition though? What is philosophically interesting about it? I'm suggesting what's philosophically interesting is the tropes we have created around it. Read the last couple of posts to see what I'm saying. Otherwise, there's not much interesting argument. Are you asking why people feel the need to attract others? Are you asking why attraction is even a thing? Are you asking why physical attributes are attractive? How they are attractive? I think we all agree that often people make physical attributes a way to attract others.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Where?
Quoting schopenhauer1
That there's an fundamental inconsistency lurking in how women think of themselves - as not objects [of sex] AND as objects [of sex]. It undermines women's position on the issue of equality with men - they want not to be treated as chattel but there they are, dressing, behaving, as chattel might if the were to come alive.
Ok, that goes back to the tropes. Both sexes are buying into it. The woman is buying into it by trying to be attractive with physical attributes. The man is buying into it by finding it attractive. So perhaps that answers the questions.. buying into tropes.
In a way I can agree with you that if the tropes are dropped (on both sides though), then the whole phenomenon might lose all power.. it becomes a non-issue. Why we perpetuate the tropes in the first place is probably because cultural cues tell us that this is an important aspect of the social order. People then internalize this social cue to feel an ego-boost from it, etc. It becomes a feedback loop of the individual and society, like many social institutions. For example, society needs hard workers, we encultrate people to feel they need to work hard, people get a sense of pride from working hard, and then society gets its hard workers.
What is the problem with tropes? Does something being a trope disqualify it from philosophical discussions right off the bat?
The idea behind a trope is simply that something is repeated to the point of it losing appeal for the audience. That's more a psychological problem of people than that the trope is inherently uninteresting. Repeating something over and over again makes that thing a trope and uninteresting but this loss of interest in the trope is not because it doesn't have meaningful and thought-provoking content but because it's heard or talked about so often that the mind relegates it to background noise (my theory).
That’s right, you don’t know. There’s no more reason to assume that it already existed in people than that it is learned through mimicking and group association. I agree that it’s something we have done over time, but so is speaking.
Quoting Brett
Well, as I have said, I don’t believe that staring at anyone is objectification in itself. My point was not that staring at women objectifies them, nor that it indicates a lack of consideration for women. But if you involve women, and then say it has nothing to do with them, what are you implying about their involvement, except that it doesn’t bear consideration?
I guess what I mean is habits and norms that should then be seen as tropes, relegated to background noise and then perhaps disappear altogether (who knows what can happen if everyone dropped pretenses).
The process might look something like this:
Society needs a way to manage sexual relations such that the species continues doing what it does (mainly procreating senselessly but that's a different issue). Habits of attraction form to move this along (pretty clunkily as we aren't as cut-and-dry like many other animals). So we have acceptable norms around what is considered attractive. Apparently showing ample cleavage, slightly larger hips, clear-of-blemished face, with a hint of color, shadow and and lining around the eyes to make it stand out, hair done in certain styles, and showing off a larger buttocks (but not too large) region is set as the norm in many places. This has been instilled since youth, and has been internalized by the signs and patterns that she has been shown from larger society, family, friends, institutions, historical contingency, media, and the like.
Wearing certain clothes and make-up for women also seen as a signifier 1) The woman is buying into the set norm of what looks good to others, and thus wants to present herself as following this norm, and thus showing to herself or others that she can follow this norm and exemplify it herself. 2) The woman might be showing other women she can exemplify this norm. 3) The woman might be showing men that she can exemplify this norm, possibly trying to attract them (or women for that matter) in a sexual or physically pleasing way.
Men also have norms of dress and looks that signify that they are buying into a set of norms around what counts as attractive (could be things like form-fitting shirts, showing off more muscles, following popular trends of sorts). Mainly though, males have set up the norm that they are the gazer.. the one who views in this physical realm. They were also enclturated but to mainly be the viewer.. So they formed habits from friends, society, the like of how to show appreciation and pleasure from staring at the women who is exemplifying the norm of attraction. Brett had a point where it could have started as wa way to bond with friends, or something someone picked up from a family member, or peer. Thus their norms might be something like 1) If I want to buy into the set of norms for what to do when a woman exemplifies the norm of looking a certain way to be attractive, I must stare a little longer to show my appreciation for following this norm.
The effect is usually something like 1) The women gets the ego-boost from the recognition. 2) The male gets some sort of aesthetic pleasure from the viewing, and possibly an unconscious idea of possession from the staring. Many times these are all signifiers if its for attraction so 3) The male hopes the female recognizes his appreciation and thus recognizes him 4) The female may or may not act on this appreciation depending on her level of attraction, etc.
At the end of the day, all of this can dissipate in theory if both sides just decided to not buy into the narratives. It is much harder obviously to actually do because it is so ingrained in society and habit-formation, but it could happen. Then, the power the women gets from trying to attract would not even matter... No need for the ego-boost and no need to stare longer. It can even happen if it was one-sided. If scantily clad women walked around and no one stared longer or cared or thought anything more than seeing a pebble on a beach, then women would no longer walk around scantily clad. For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, women are naked all the time..no one cares in the tribe as it is not a habit to find this anything of significance.
Firstly, I feel that you're not adequately addressing the issue at hand - why are women dressing or even behaving in ways that lends itself to being treated as sex-toys? That such behavior is part of our culture doesn't resolve the inconsistency I pointed to. All that can be inferred from your stand on this is that women are dressing the way they do out of habit but the million dollar question is why did it become a part of our culture? What reason lies behind dressing in revealing clothes transforming from a novel idea (in the beginning) to a custom? Why has sexually enticing clothing become, as you assert, a trope.
Secondly, regarding your comment on the nakedness of hunter-gatherer women, think of why women (and men too) began wearing clothes. Clothes serve to protect the wearer from the elements but also, once humans made the transition to civilization, to protect modesty.
I believe I did answer this when describing the whole process. I stated that the very origins probably lies here: Quoting schopenhauer1
Once something becomes a habit or a trope, it is often pervasive. It becomes just the "way it is". But is it? No, of course not, it was made up a long time ago in a civilization far far away. To get pop-culture here, this lyric kind of reiterates it from Bruce Hornsby:
Said, hey little boy you can't go where the others go
'Cause you don't look like they do
Said, hey old man how can you stand
To think that way
Did you really think about it
Before you made the rules?
He said, "son
That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
Ah, but don't you believe them"
I mean, granted that is about institutional racism, but still this all goes back to tropes tropes tropes. So really it was pushed by social institutions feedback to individual enculturation back to society again, making a feedback loop, as often these habits and tropes are. As I said before: Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting TheMadFool
But look at what caused what. Modesty happened after the switch to clothes for protection, meaning it was a derivative social phenomenon from the original reason. Perhaps the habit of clothes wearing, made the anything outside of public nudity transgressive. The habit of wearing clothes made diminished the original habit of being naked. So hunter-gatherers who are naked probably use other signifiers for attraction, or perhaps attraction is a different phenomena, more akin to familiarity and comfort with someone, etc. Or perhaps in some cultures, its the male peacocking behaviors and the women's gaze that counts more for what you might call "objectification".
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
All you've said is that it's become customary for women to dress in the way they do. You haven't offered me a reason why?
Quoting schopenhauer1
The reply to this is the question I asked above viz. why did wearing certain kinds of clothes become the norm?
Not all nakedness is sexual, and not all sexuality is objectification. Slavery is objectification, but the play of domination and submission is not - because it is a game.
Aren't the low-neckline, exposing cleavage, and the miniskirt, exposing the thighs, just that - striptease?
Do you think it is a matter of fact, and not a matter of perception in relation to a culture? How extraordinary it seems to me that you should suggest it! When i was a lad, it was considered an outrageous obscenity that the Beatles grew their hair so long it covered their ears. Like girls!
I find this thread a sad disappointment by its mere existence, never mind the content. Why is it always the woman whose dress is questionable? Always subject to the moral scrutiny of every spotty teen or middle aged paunch that cares to venture to lay down the criteria of appropriate femininity. That is objectification of women; this is objectification of women!
Well, it is a fact about perception: women perceive it as part of their femininity to dress in a men-pleasing manner. That's the issue isn't it?
Quoting unenlightened
If there were any other categories that dressed in ways inconsistent with their beliefs then it should show up here. Men and children don't dress in ways that defeat their views about themselves.
You speak for women do you?
To be honest, I don't but this isn't rocket science - anyone with a decent head on his shoulders can see what women's clothing these days add up to. Connect the dots and you get the image of women dressing up to be something they've spent a whole lot of time and effort rejecting as part of their identity.
But I did.. Again..
Quoting schopenhauer1
I not only gave a reason for why society started it but three reasons why women would participate in the tropes. I also mentioned how it's a two way street and the reasons why men also participate in it. The sign is only significant when there is someone who interprets it and acts accordingly. Males take the information and make something out of it, making it significant. What else do you want? That is a reason why on both accounts. I also mentioned how the whole thing would disappear if one party thought it wasn't significant anymore.
What are they dressing up as that they've spent time and effort rejecting? ( He asks, pretending for no good reason that women always dress the same way.)
[quote=Schopenhauer1]I also mentioned how the whole thing would disappear if one party thought it wasn't significant anymore.[/quote]
Which side, men/women, would call the shots in deciding that this particular trope had run its course and now needs to be put in the scrapheap?
As sex-objects.
Quoting Possibility
Don’t you think that something has to exist and to exist must have had some meaning to exist before it was mimicked or learned? How could you mimic something in a vacuum?
I have another question, which probably should be addressed to . When talking about the the apparent contradiction in women who dress to attract attention (if that really is what they’re doing) but object to being treated as objects are we talking about these two ideas existing in the one woman, or are we talking about two types that in no way relate to each other.
Secondly, objectification is, I’m assuming, part of feminist theory. What exactly is the feelings that come about through “objectification”? Is it feeling “uncomfortable” or anxious or what? What exactly is it? Is it something that only women can feel and then only some women? Is it possible that the feeling is no different than the feeling I had crossing the road in front of the cars that caused my sense of self, the role I assumed, to stumble.
I also don’t think bringing strippers into the argument helps anyone. As soon as a transaction takes place, in this case money, all bets are off. Nor do I think it’s only “scantily clad” women that are stared at. Nor do I think the men who lean out car windows yelling at girls are the same as men who might idly look at a passing women, That might just be a difference of maturity or upbringing. It’s not so simple is it? Not that I’m suggesting you were saying so.
People refered to strippers deliberately to both show how sexual display is not equivalent to objectification but how men take it to be. Strippers are people too. They have their own agency and different range of sexual activities they are comfortable with or not.
The point many men do not recognise this, including several in this thread, such that the women are treated as nothing more than an object to fulfil a sexual purpose, rather than being recognised for the people and professionals they are. The following is a perfect example of this:
[quote= “brett”] As soon as a transaction takes place, in this case money, all bets are off.[/quote]
This is not true. To strip it not an agreement to any kind of sexual activity or desire. Some strippers may in fact insist people do not stare with a specific tone. Just as they might insist not to be touched, spoken about in certain ways, photographed, etc., an exchange of money does not take away the question of what activity someone else is comfortable with.
Even an act being specifically mentioned in a contract doesn’t change this. Maybe a strip club holds a policy that men can stare however they want, but this doesn’t alter what an individual dancer is comfortable with. Men (and the strip club) taking she must be subject to any stare is objectification, for it denies who she is supposed be sexually without reference to her own agency and wishes.
If we recognise the dancer as a person, with agency and wishes, we would know that not even a contract, including one we are paying for, would entail that she must be subject to any stare. We would recognise respecting her as a person and performer entails being aware of the sexual relation she is comfortable with. We would choose not to stare in ways she found uncomfortable because her well-being is important to us, and we recognise the interaction as an event of mutual agency.
[quote= “brett”]Nor do I think it’s only “scantily clad” women that are stared at. Nor do I think the men who lean out car windows yelling at girls are the same as men who might idly look at a passing women, That might just be a difference of maturity or upbringing. It’s not so simple is it? Not that I’m suggesting you were saying so.[/quote]
Indeed. The point is, however, that all those men have something in common: they think of the woman as thing which must give them their sexual satisfaction, they all objectify her. They do not understand the woman to be here own person, who gets to choose whether to be involved in a sexual interaction or activity.
Are you saying that a woman who wants sex wants to be objectified? That a woman who wants to excite a man wants to be treated as a sex object?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
What I meant by that statement is that the transactions turns the act and the watching into entertainment. Not that it is now legitimate. It's not clear anymore what she's doing and why the women is stripping. She may be stripping because she is starving or hoping to feed her children. We can't tell because she's now playing to the fantasy of the male. So I find it an unreliable example of the whole business of objectification. It's no longer real in any sense and is instead a contrived and manipulated situation.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't believe this is true. It's too easy to generalise to prove a point.
It's necessary, to support the theory of objectification, that the stare, or gaze, is always sexual.
A stripper whom nobody stares at will soon feel uncomfortable.
Of course it’s a tease. So what?
[i]Attention:
1. Notice taken of someone or something; the regarding of someone or something as interesting or important.
The mental faculty of considering or taking notice of someone or something.
2. the action of dealing with or taking special care of someone or something.
Things done to express interest in or please someone.[/i]
You know that a man is paying attention to you when his eyes are looking in your direction. It is really that simple. You could be saying something clever or witty, but if his eyes are focused somewhere else, then he’s not attributing any value or interest in his experience to you. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.
Quoting TheMadFool
A woman’s cleavage is not a display of ‘goods’ or ‘merchandise’. She is not a product. It’s not about what men want, it’s about what men notice. If she wants a man to notice her in a crowd and consider getting to know her as a person, how do you propose she get his attention? By walking up to him in a burka and starting a conversation? Depending on the situation, it can be difficult to find a balance between noticeable and looking for a fuck, and when you continually find yourself barely worth so much as a nod of acknowledgement, then it can feel oddly validating to be noticed for a change, even in polite conversation.
But it should NOT be assumed that a woman who shows her cleavage wants anything more than to not be invisible to men. If you respond to this display by acknowledging her as a thinking, feeling person who makes her own choices, then you have her attention. She needs to hear that you noticed her before she let the girls out, or she needs you to be honest and apologise that you didn’t. She needs to hear that she has other qualities besides her boobs, qualities that, as a man, you might consider interesting or important. Sometimes she just needs to hear that you don’t want to assume she’s suggesting anything by what she’s wearing. And if you do or say anything other than these in response to what she’s wearing, then you are part of the problem. Sorry.
Yes. Certain clothes accentuate sexuality and wearing them is a deliberate act of presenting the wearer in an erotic light and that, in my humble opinion, has consequences viz. being seen only as a means to satisfaction of carnal urges.
Nothing humble about that opinion. Do you apply it to yourself? Do you objectify yourself whenever you try and attract a sexual partner? Or are you just an ordinary male chauvinist?
Let me be clear, I'm not a male chauvinist at all. That out of the way, I'd like to ask you a simple question: what is it that's being revealed by wearing revealing clothes and what is the purpose of revealing that which is being revealed?
Quoting TheMadFool
I know what’s being revealed but I don’t know why.
But consider this; other things, physical, are being revealed at the same time that you would not regard as sexual.
Put 2 and 2 together is my advice.
Quoting TheMadFool
That’s a surprising statement on a philosophy forum. How can you know the thoughts or feelings, and more, of another person?
It’s entirely possible, and more than likely happens often, that a women revealing parts of her body to a man isn’t about enticing him but ridiculing him; like saying to her friend; “watch this.”
Are you implying there's some other as yet unknown reason behind dressing revealingly? :chin: What could it be I wonder.
All else being equal, it is being revealed that the woman in question wants to look attractive to one or more men. Rather like when a man wears a suit, he wants to look respectable, masculine, important and possibly, attractive to women.
So now explain why any of this amounts to objectification.
“Watch his tongue hanging out”.
So a woman is ridiculing a man by belittling herself? Something doesn't add up.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is a problem. That’s your idea if it,
It doesn't add up that being attractive is belittling oneself.
But , you don’t even have to be attractive. That’s another problem.
There are people in this thread who continue to define objectification as inclusive of aesthetic evaluation, but I disagree with this. It is NOT the sense that I am valued for my appearance and/or capacity to fulfil your needs. Objectification is the sense that I am ONLY valued for my appearance and/or capacity to fulfil your needs. That my failure to deliver on either count would invalidate my existence, because nothing else about me matters. I imagine anyone subject to slavery conditions might feel this way.
Objectification is not just a feeling, though - it’s an action. It is what someone does when they deny agency - when they treat a person or animal as an object. Any interaction with an object is according to its appearance and functionality in relation to the subject. An object is not a participant in the interaction - it is ‘caught up’ in something that often exists apart from it, and it merely serves a function or point of focus. An object exists for the sake of the subject and the action. Objectification is what happens when someone kicks a dog in anger, or refers to a woman’s sexuality as ‘merchandise’, or assumes that because a woman shows a bit of thigh that she’s open for business, or assumes that by agreeing to sex she’s agreeing to be his plaything.
But I think that some women can feel objectified without anyone specifically objectifying her. This is a case where she has internalised an experience of repeated objectification - this is self-objectification. But self-objectification is not necessarily what a stripper or porn star does - there are many strippers and porn stars who derive a sense of agency from their work. Self-objectification is what women do when they starve themselves to look like models, when they get a boob job to please a man, or when they fuck for validation. It is a reduction of self-value to appearance and/or capacity to fulfil another’s needs.
You can’t assume self-objectification by observing behaviour, anymore than a woman can assume objectification from a stare. It is as much about one’s intentions as about words and actions. It’s fuzzy and uncertain, but we clarify by avoiding assumptions, and by speaking and listening to one another as human beings. Funnily enough, the solution to both objectification and self-objectification is for men to validate women for more than their appearance and or capacity to meet a man’s needs. It is difficult for feminists to admit that the solution lies with the actions and attitudes of men - they’re more inclined to just complain about what you ARE doing - but it’s true. Every interaction you have with women should endeavour to reflect your understanding of the woman’s capacity to choose for herself. When you do that, your relationship with women will improve, and you will give women space to be more than they thought they could be.
FWIW, if more men appreciated the risk a woman takes to get their attention and endeavoured to treat all genuine attempts with respect, then they may be surprised to find more intelligent, self-respecting women among them. Likewise, if more women appreciated the courage it takes for a man to initiate a conversation, and endeavoured to treat all genuine attempts with decency, then they may be surprised to find more decent guys among them. Just a thought.
I agree that the attention sought by dressing in certain ways is particular as in some men of interest and not general as in all men. Yet, showing skin to attract men seems too close for comfort to using the body as bait and isn't that what sexual objectification means?
:rofl:
Wear revealing clothes
No.
Quoting Possibility
No argument there, if that was purely the case, if that’s what all looking was about?
But I don’t think you’ve explained what objectification is as an experience.
I assume that women who pose naked for artists are completely comfortable in themselves.
I had a friend who was asked to pose for a painter. It was her first time. She said the experience was initially so powerful that she couldn’t remember how to move her hand or arm naturally when asked. She lost control of her sense of self.
I don’t think of that as objectification. It’s an internal schism of some sort but it’s doesn’t seem to be that she’d become what he was looking at. It’s really some kind of existential moment for her, like “Who the hell am I?”.
Heartbreaker.
Why would a woman let a man define who she is? And through only a look?
Is the experience not 'having one's existence invalidated'? (Man repeats what she just said so it sounds more important.)
I don’t think of that as objectification, either. People who pose naked for artists are choosing the experience of being looked at aesthetically, which is not the same as being looked at as an object. The artist is not objectifying her - if so, the artwork would look like a primary school drawing, and she would have felt quite different about the experience. An artist’s eye doesn’t see objects. The gaze is very different - it relates the model to their surroundings in a way that dissolves all object boundaries. There is only space and shape and line. I’m not surprised she lost control of her sense of self. It’s likely she did become what he was looking at, but it’s similar to women who choose to strip only in that she chooses where and when and most importantly HOW to be looked at.
Quoting Possibility
I don’t think its always possible to tell the difference.
Quoting Possibility
That’s not what I was saying. She did not become what he was looking at. She wondered exactly who she was.
Who said anything about defining? I’m talking about value. And I don’t believe anyone can assume objectification from a look (I’ve already said that). Willow and myself have very different views - the fact that we’re both female doesn’t mean that we think the same.
True, but I think a woman who is prepared to be a nude artist’s model but not a playboy model can tell the difference.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Possibility
That’s a definition to me.
I was assuming the context was refering to cases in question were men were learing from sexual interest. My postion is certainly not that any look equaled objectification. All staring is not even objectification.
No that’s not what I was inferring. I was suggesting, as you say, that not all staring is objectification. Though it may be that some women may think that every man is looking at her in the same way. There may be reasons for her thinking that, but for some of those men they are not the reason, despite her feelings.
Quoting unenlightened
I can’t get my head around that. Can you explain it a bit more?
Quoting Possibility
Playboy models having low self esteem presumably, or just stupid. That’s an unfair assumption, don’t you think? It sort of plays into the hands of objectification, like she’s too stupid to understand what she’s doing, or she knowingly makes her decisions and gets what she deserves.
What does sexual objectification mean then?
I agree with this, and said as much.
Read what I wrote again. I’m referring to her distinguishing between two different gazes, and being able to choose one and not the other. A woman who chooses to be a playboy model and not an artist’s model - or demands different pay rates - can also tell the difference.
I’m only suggesting that she recognised a lack of boundary to the self - what he was looking at was an undefined relation to the universe. You don’t think there was a connection?
I admire your friend’s capacity to participate in the interaction. Her account shows a confidence and comfort with herself that women should aspire to, in my opinion.
I happen to have an ample chest but I’m not very tall, and I have a short waist. Most high neckline tops make me look like my breasts are hanging around my waistline instead of where I think they’re supposed to be. At work I usually wear a scarf with as low a neckline as I can respectably get away with - not because it might tantalise men, but because it makes me look more in proportion. If I wear a skirt, it’s either floor length or halfway up the thigh, because any other length makes my legs look disproportionately short. At work I usually wear pants, because it’s the most practical option. But when I go out, I like to wear a dress. They usually have low necklines and expose the thigh - not because it tantalises men, but because I feel attractive to ME. I’m conscious that exposing these parts of my body has arousal value for men, but frankly, I’m not going to hide my sexuality just because you might be inconvenienced with a boner. Not my problem.
And using sexually charged language such as ‘dressed provocatively’ and ‘goods men crave’ is hardly presenting an objective view.
More an example of objectification than a discussion. Women (or bits thereof) as goods? A meat market.
Regarding your reply to me, it seems I misunderstood you. As a result, we probably agree more than we disagree. However, I wanted to explain that the issue I have with women who complain about men objectifying them is when their complaint is not warranted, as in the case of staring; or when they pretend to act so naive that they’re shocked that their attire draws unwanted attention. I think women of that sort need to own up to the responsibility/consequences of their choice of attire. Basically, if you don’t want to be viewed as a piece of meat, then don’t present yourself as such. Just like if I don’t want people thinking I’m poor, I shouldn’t dress like a hobo.
Also,
Quoting Possibility
Agreed, but any issue I have would be regarding how you react to flirting, gazing, “compliments,” or other non-criminal actions that you receive from men as a result of this choice of attire. Also, to a certain extent, this is similar to walking around with a cart full of food in a village full of hungry people. You shouldn’t be surprised if most people ask for some food, or if some try to steal it from you. Not that stealing is in anyway an acceptable act, just that it’s to be expected.
Also, just a general question/comment. If objectification is thinking of someone as an object, then, strictly speaking it is a thought. Whereas if it is treating someone as an object, strictly speaking it is an action. So me objectifying someone in thought in private while I masturbate, for example, is permissible, but masturbating in front of someone without their permission, a la Louis CK, is not. Agree?
Quoting Possibility
Very interesting post. Obviously a lot more going on than men would understand. I don’t disagree with much of what you’ve said. I would also agree with you, or others, who have noted the type of language being used here to try and explain their thoughts or perceptions. It does suggest an inability to get past a particular way of looking at things and in some ways stifles the OP.
It’s likely she did become what he was looking at,
— Possibility
I think I may have misinterpreted your post here. Do you mean that she became something more than she was because of the nature of the relationship between them, which was created by the way he, the artist, was looking at here?
I’m with you here.
Animalistic is not objectification. An animal can still be regarded as having agency - still capable of making choices and having preferences, in this case during sex. Otherwise I agree with you. What you’re saying is related to relationships that extend beyond the sexual act, but we weren’t really going there in this thread.
I agree, and have said as much, that some women will self-objectify and then project. Self-objectification has been found to be a direct result of repeated experiences of objectification. In this sense, they have internalised objectification, and expecting them to own up to the consequences of their choice doesn’t really work if they’re not aware of making that choice for themselves.
I have also suggested that the solution to this is for men to stop objectifying women, full stop. Dressing in a miniskirt and low-cut top is NOT presenting herself as a piece of meat - YOU are interpreting it that way, because all you see is breasts and legs, not the person they are attached to. Regardless of why she dresses that way, you don’t have permission to treat her as a piece of meat. Likewise, if I think that wearing slouchies is dressing like a hobo, that’s my problem, not yours. I don’t get to treat you like a hobo just because you dress like I think a hobo dresses. These are people - talk to them.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Pinprick
Personally, I’m not offended by men flirting, gazing or complimenting me on aesthetic appeal, but I will object to assumptions that my choice of attire is for their benefit - that I’m ‘walking around with a cart full of food’ as if to say “look at all this food I have that you don’t”. I happen to be a sexual being - that should not be interpreted as an affront to you, and I should not be expected to hide it because it’s something YOU want. If you ask for some food and I have it, I would happily share, but my body and my sexual identity is NOT food, it is ME.
Quoting Pinprick
Well, I’m not going to tell you what to do in private, but as a woman I don’t appreciate being thought of as an object at all. I’d prefer you to think of me as a whole person, because that’s what I am. Drawing a line between when and where it is permissible to objectify a person defeats the purpose. Change your thinking, and it flows into actions.
This is probably a bit tangential but I wonder why or when certain body parts became associated with sexual attraction, etc. I doubt hunter-gatherers think twice about any of this.. This is why I said earlier that this is very much cultural tropes we picked up from civilization many years back and are now sort amplifying this echo-chamber of "what makes something attractive". It's interesting, because I really don't want to go down the route of evolutionary psychology to answer this. I think we can maintain social construction theory and it would still work. Evolutionary psychology is fraught with "just so" theories, projections, retrojections, false analogies to other animals, people's biases, etc. It is almost a non-starter. You have theories of symmetry, and some experiments but it is too late for controls and comparisons by the time people have already been enculturated, one would think. I'm sure someone can come up with a handful of anthropological studies, but I don't know..
Quoting schopenhauer1
And some no longer. The cultural ideas of beauty or attraction among different people in Africa, particularly women, in the form of a high band a of rings around the neck and throat, the disc in the bottom lip, the tattooing and incisions in the skin, they seem to be slowly disappearing. No longer relevant, or replaced by something else, and if so by what?
It's just that.. why or when did this happen? It's kind of like "When did humans develop X, Y, Z notion". It's just something to ponder or try to understand. We may never know exactly how bread was invented/discovered, but we can probably reconstruct theories. But the point is, if it is a social construction, then that means it mutable, changeable, just like some of the traditions you are mentioning have changed.
Thank you.
Quoting Brett
She already is something more. By relating to his gaze - letting go of her physical self-identity - it seems she was able to consciously relate to the world in a different, more fundamental way. For me, it shows that she identifies herself with a metaphysical existence - as more than just a physical being.
Well I think it’s interesting about the African women, assuming I’m correct, because this change has come about in our lifetime. So it’s possible to connect the dots a little.
So, a gaze that gives instead of taking. And it’s not lost on me that it’s taking place in a creative act.
Not instead of taking - what you’ve described seems to me a mutual collaboration, in that there is give and take on both sides, with consent, for the duration of the act.
Sorry for the delay. I was with my lady friend and we were enjoying objectifying ourselves this weekend, and appreciating our mutual attraction (aesthetic appreciation) to, and for, our material agency/agencies :blush:
I provided a definition list so that you could make coherent or sound propositions out of your ( & ) arguments.
Here's a syllogism that you can parse, if you care to (Some A are B. All A are C. Therefore, some C are B):
Some women/men are strippers.
All women/men are objects.
Therefore, some objects are strippers.
Now, I took the liberty to research common definitions relating to these concepts; try to use a logico- deductive argument with the following definitions in order to make your case:
Objectify:
1. to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.
2. express (something abstract) in a concrete form.
3. to give expression to (something, such as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.
4. : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality
Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
Eros: love is the physical, sensual intimacy between man, woman, husband/wife, human's... . It expresses sexual, romantic attraction. Eros is also the name of the mythological Greek god of love, sexual desire, physical attraction, and physical love. This love passion was described through an elaborate metaphoric and mythological schema involving "love's arrows" or "love darts", the source of which was often the personified figure of Eros (or his Latin counterpart, Cupid), or another deity (such as Rumor. At times the source of the arrows was said to be the image of the beautiful love object itself.
Aesthetics, or esthetics (/?s???t?ks, i?s-, æs-/) : is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). Aesthetics covers both natural and artificial sources of aesthetic experience and judgment. It considers what happens in our minds when we engage with aesthetic objects… .
Physical v. Meta-physical: The differences between having to do with the body and the material world, and the study of the ultimate nature of existence and the universe.
That's not what Possibility suggested. She suggested stripper's engage in such activity to obtain economic and social value.
If you wish to underscore the dysfunctional/pathological aspect of Objectification, you may do so; no exceptions taken. However, you must make the distinction between material agency and mental agency.
It's not cultural, as much as it's Existential. You should know better Schop1 :yikes:
How can we escape the world of aesthetic experiences?
Well, I don't necessarily buy into Schop's or Plato's idea that beauty is some non-material Platonic ideal that is sussed out when presented with art/nature. I think a lot of its origins is cultural-based as to what counts as beauty.
I will say Schop's idea of Will is more dead on to what is going on. Much of human relations is out of boredom. What is loneliness but boredom directed at the absence of other people (rather than a more interesting activity or other experiential phenomena)? Showing skin, having the hip-to-waist ratio, cleavage, plump, but not fat butt, etc. It's so easy to fall into "just so" evolutionary psychology reasons people appreciate these aspects. They do indeed correspond with sexual dimorphism (these are charactersitics that are not typically male, but only female), but again, it's the attraction to these aspects that is the mystery. Is it that it is the "other"? Or is it perhaps more culturally ingrained?
Perhaps in an odd Freudian idea.. The sexual libido learns by society what is proper to associate one's desires for. As I stated earlier, society needs sexual relations to function a certain way and regulated to make procreation happen. Sexual attraction may be all a part of this narrative. What is actually society pushing people along (i.e. during puberty you should have these strong desires rather than they really are manifest.. in other words the hormones though they are a factor are not the actual telos-directedness which is actually triggered by society saying what the hormones should be aiming for..etc.). So perhaps this kind of attraction or beauty is much more cultural than we think.
Perhaps I am totally wrong though, and it's all evolution all the way down.. Humans are not so cut-and-dry. Bats can fly and we can fly but one's origination has nothing to do with the other. Animals have behaviors and so do we, but the mechanism for how behaviors manifest in a social-linguistic world that we create (in other words social construction), is so far removed from innate behaviors of other animals, that it seems to be misapplied attributions to what similar mechanisms to other animals that would indeed not be the case, but only appears so because we so want an answer for our own behaviors and their origins and the analogy to the animal world coupled with evolutionary theory provides a convenient "just so" theory.
Let's consider the question. Is it a question which assumes there are things called "aesthetic experiences" we can act towards, accept or avoid in some manner? We, and everything else, and even our experiences, are part of the same world. There's no "escape."
Now, if you're asking how we "escape" from (presumably avoid)--objectifying people--
First, we define "objectifying" and "object." Naturally, if we define them as you do, by assuming that everything is an object or "presents" as an object (what a peculiarly sexual way of putting it--an object rendering itself available for us to...?) we come to the completely unsurprising conclusion that--we can't!! Q.E.D.
What more is there to debate?
Sure, but presumably one dresses a certain way because they want people to perceive them accordingly. This isn’t an absolute rule, of course. People could have limited options, or simply not care about others perceptions of them, etc. So it seems that making certain assumptions based on someone’s appearance is warranted. You assume the person in the police uniform is a police officer, and treat him accordingly. The fact of the matter is that perspective is a two way street. My judgements and assumptions about people are what they are partly due to how they present themselves. Do I have my own biases, agendas, and discriminations? Of course. But that doesn’t mean that my assessment of you is strictly my problem. Some women present themselves in hyper-sexualized ways, because that is precisely what they are offering; sex. Regarding communication, could you give an example of how one is supposed to have this type of conversation without offending the person whose appearance is being judged? I can’t seem to think of a way to ask someone if they’re homeless, a prostitute, etc. without doing so.
Quoting Possibility
Good for you, but some (most?) women are. That’s not the way I intended the analogy, though. It’s more about you having something others desire, openly displaying your possession of it, and being offended/shocked by people calling attention to that fact (which it seems doesn’t apply to you).
Quoting Possibility
That’s fine, as long as I’m not expected to not pursue something I want. And the issue here is that are men not made to feel ashamed or morally corrupt by doing so? Even just asking or “complimenting” can result in shaming, or even violence (slapping). Also, can you explain what you mean by your “sexual identity?” Do you mean whether you’re heterosexual or LBGTQ? If so, I’m not seeing how that’s relevant. I assume your body would appeal to both heterosexual males, and lesbians alike. So it’s not that you choosing to wear more conservative clothing somehow limits your ability to express your sexual identity. I don’t think you can always determine one’s sexual identity strictly by their appearance.
Quoting Possibility
This is perfectly reasonable too. But I would suggest that you present yourself as a whole person if that’s how you want to be judged. And I’m not implying that you, personally, don’t, but more generally to all women.
There's that word "present" again. Present yourself appropriately if you wish to be judged as a "whole person" is the admonishment made. If you don't do so, well then expect to be considered something other than a whole whole person. You're just asking for that.
It's an unworthy way to absolve oneself from responsibility for one's own thoughts and conduct.
It's not a dichotomization, of course. Plato did just that though, by, in paraphrase, introducing the idea of 'inner beauty' in this case. Then the arguments/metaphors follow, like; the beauty of mathematics, the beauty of truth, the beauty of the mind/inner beauty, etc..
SimilarlyQuoting schopenhauer1
Of course I don't think it's cultural. Using the cognitive science example of the attachment-theory, it's an innate feature of consciousness (I.E., Baby sees mom, mom leaves baby, baby cries.) Same when a new-born comes out of the womb. Everyone say's how beautiful it is (the object itself), without any 'real' Platonic inner beauty/intellectual connection.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nope, don't believe so. I don't think rubrics have any bearing on sexual attraction in human's. The Eros phenomenon is alive and well. I suppose in theory, if we were brains in a jar perhaps we would make distinctions between brain-size, shape, and other aesthetic features of same. But in principle, all we would have there is the Platonic inner-beauty to work with... .
Quoting schopenhauer1
Existentially, the rubrics of society has very little impact. You would have to explain why human's masturbate. Alternatively, one would have to explain why people are born with either homosexual or heterosexual tendencies. But in either case, what you have is a something that's intrinsic and innate viz the need to procreate (masturbation) along with the physical object which is the desired means to an end, (at least initially-love at first sight, infatuation, etc.).
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think that's where some of the reality exists. Only in that its innate to the species. Otherwise one would have to explain how sexual attraction evolved both physically and metaphysically. In other words, with some exceptions of course, there is a stick and a hole, along with some Platonic realm and other cognitive phenomena at work (Love). And I don't think either one of those have really changed much, meaning, as self-aware conscious beings, cognitive science has taken us all the way up to the theory of Love, which is where the mystery ends... .
Not exatcly sure what you are asking CW, but there seems like there are two components then:
The aesthetical experience, and the non-aesthetical experience, right?
The males and females in this thread seem to have different feelings about Objectification. For men, it's intended as a complement. A wolf-whistle is a rude & crude way of complimenting an attractive woman on her sex appeal. And some self-confident women seem to accept such boorish behavior as a positive ego-boosting comment. But for many women, objectification by an unknown male could be perceived as an implicit threat, or a sign of dominance. The "helpful" distinction you make in your post is exactly the same as the one in my first post : Sexual versus Political objectification. [ Note added ]
The history of that instinctive gender distinction is clear : in most cultures, unattached women (unmarried or without children) have all-too-often been considered "fair game" by predatory males. Women have been raped and otherwise abused, when they had no husbands or family to protect them. That's why rape, by conquering armies, has been so common. Most "nice young men", in their own society, would not think of raping a woman. But the anonymity of war, and the absence of male protectors, allows them to commit unconscionable acts of violence ("booty", in ancient times; "war crimes", in enlightened modern political parlance).
The Sociobiology explanation for such "antisocial" behavior is that sexual aggression & political competitiveness are innate to the male genetic inheritance. That amoral scientific assessment was unfairly criticized for dismissing overt male dominance as merely a case of "boys will be boys". A Biblcal explanation is that all such "evil" tendencies are an inheritance from the "fall" of Adam & Eve. A self-serving interpretation of innate evil is that a raped woman got what she deserved. But Continental and Postmodern philosophers typically deny the notions of Human Nature and Original Sin. Instead, they blame most of the evils of the world on Human Culture, with the implication that an inclusive Socialist government could rectify the errors of previous male-dominant Capitalist political systems. Unfortunately, we have only a few examples (e.g. Sweden) of such egalitarian societies.
The June 2020 issue of National Geographic magazine has an article on the sad state of women in politics. In a Democracy Index table of of male/female representation in government, the United States was merely average, and Sweden was judged most gender democratic. Ironically, the former socialist republic of Russia lagged far behind. Moreover, even when quotas for women in politics are mandated by law, as in Afghanistan, the women are still dominated by men, and dismissed by women. One female Aghani parliamentarian lamented : "the problem was that the main decision-makers in this society are men, not women; even if we become politicians, the first and last word is said by a man".
So, it seems that the ideal of an egalitarian society, where women are respected as "agents" rather than used as "objects", remains a future fantasy. On the brighter side though, we can take some comfort from the documented fact*1 that humanity has made measurable moral progress, including Women's Rights, over recent centuries. Compared to Old Testament times, women have made gains in agency, but still have a long climb ahead to penetrate the "glass ceiling". That may be why the male posters don't see Sexual Objectification as a major problem for modern liberated women, compared with their long history of abuse & misuse. :cool:
Sex & Aggression : Humans follow gender?specific sexual strategies, display aggressive behavior, and respond to physical pain as do other animals. Yet human beings have the intellectual ability to express these tendencies uniquely in either destructive or constructive ways. The human being, unlike any other animal, must reckon with sexual ethics, the problem of violence, and the meaning of suffering.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0591-2385.00160
*1 Moral Progress : human rights. Ongoing global campaigns have targeted child labour, capital punishment, human trafficking, violence against women, female genital mutilation, and the criminalization of homosexuality. Each has made measureable inroads and, if history is a guide, these barbaric customs will go the way of human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, chattel slavery, heretic burning, torture executions, public hangings, debt bondage, duelling, harems, eunuchs, freak shows, foot binding, laughing at the insane, and the designated goon in hockey.
https://www.intelligentoptimism.com/steven-pinker-moral-progress
*1 Pinker's Progress : https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-18/steven-pinkers-ideas-about-progress-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/
Biblical women's rights : men of the city gather around Lot's house and demand that he give them the two guests so they could rape them. In response, Lot offers the mob his two daughters instead, noting that they are virgins
Genesis 19
Glass Ceiling : an unofficially acknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession, especially affecting women and members of minorities.
Hmm. Why wouldn't we objectify an object if we have a non-aesthetical experience? It's still an experience of an object, no?
Quoting Gnomon
Gnomon! Indeed, that's human pathological/existential phenomena that Possibily and Willow are underscoring (which is the popular objectification definition)... .
Great point! Are you then admitting that we cannot escape it?
Sorry, no. I'm saying that if we accept your definitions, we can't escape it.
How can we escape it then?
Well, if we must speak in terms of objects and assume that everything is either an object or "presents" as an object (I'd rather not), one way it could be done is by acknowledging that to be an object is not necessarily to be objectified; that, in other words "objectification" is something different from merely perceiving any part of the world. Instead, it's a way of thinking of certain parts of the world. So, we think about another another person in a way substantially different from the way we think of, e.g., a cheeseburger. Thus, if we must consider a woman to be an object or to be "presented" as an object we nonetheless conceive of her as something different from the object that is a cheeseburger, or whatever.
Presumably, even in a world populated by objects or "presented" objects, we're capable of distinguishing between objects and presented objects and valuing them differently. We don't have to think of women as cheeseburgers even if cheeseburgers and women are both objects or present as objects. Objectification becomes a manner of conceiving of a particular kind of object or presented object.
If we're not required to speak in terms of objects and assume that everything is either an object or presents as an object; if, in other words, we don't think of the rest of the world as objects unrelated to us to which we're spectators, to which we react, but instead consider our lives to be a series of interactions or transactions we as living organisms have to the rest of our environment, then we don't think of everything but ourselves as being "objects"--mere things we see or hear or touch or taste or run into, etc., having in common the fact that they are not us. Instead, there's no inclination to think they're all the same in some sense and treat them accordingly. We think of them and interact with them based on what their qualities are and the situation and circumstances in which we encounter them. That situation and those circumstances are impacted by prior experience of other circumstances and interactions. We know thereby that women aren't cheeseburgers, and that they're not "objects" like any other. If we treat them like cheeseburgers and think of them like cheeseburgers, then, we treat them as something they are not. We may do so in some situations, and it may be well and good in some when, for example they treat us in the same way consensually and the interaction is merely for sexual pleasure, but we know it would be otherwise in other situations.
With all due respect CW you are simply regurgitating the ethical, pathological, and/or dysfunctional stereotypes or stereotypical definition of objectification.
In fact, you provided no insight on how to escape from the phenomenon of the physical world in which we live, or said another way, the escape from the experiencial world of physics. For example, you had to default to a cheeseburger (to describe/explain your argument) which is in fact a physical object, correct? Thus using your metaphor of the cheeseburger, the burger is experienced as aesthetically unpleasing or pleasing, regardless. Those are physical attributes you experienced.
And so we make judgments about aesthetics whether it's objects without a consciousness or objects with consciousness. Male, female, dog, cat, tiger, house, car, clothing, etc. Why would you choose a yellow car over a red car, why would you choose a colonial house over a contemporary rancher, ad nauseum. You make judgments about objects you see through your sense experience.
Your argument seems to be that if I treat my car badly, and don't maintain it properly, that I've objectified the car. What if I treat the car the opposite; wash and wax it, change the oil regularly, keep it clean, etc.? Have I still objectified it?
I ask once again, how do we escape our world of material objects and associated judgments? ( Please don't take this the wrong way but I have to ask you, have you studied the philosophy of aesthetics?)
In any of these cases, it could simply be beauty is learned. Communities want you to value X, Y, Z in these realms in order for you to appreciate them and value them. It could be functional. Someone who is "good" at math but finds no beauty in it, might not value it as much as a mathematician who savors a problem as "elegant" or "symmetrical".
Quoting 3017amen
I'm not sure how attachment theory has as much to do with it. Perhaps it can relate to how one functions in a relationship.. but not sure.
Quoting 3017amen
As I stated, it's not the libido itself that is cultural, but what it's directed towards perhaps. "This is what one finds attractive. That is not, unless you like unattractive things.." etc.
Quoting 3017amen
I just don't think Platonic ideas have to do with it much. It is almost an abuse of language to say the symmetry in math is like the symmetry in a face or a body, etc.
Yes. A car IS an object - it has no agency, so whether you treat it with care or not is not the issue. A woman, however is a human being, and so expects to be treated as someone who has a right to choose the way that she interacts with you. When you fail to do that, you objectify her.
Quoting 3017amen
We escape the world of material objects and associated judgements by recognising agency where it exists. Aesthetic appreciation can be achieved without denying agency, without objectifying. Regardless of whether your focus has been guided by aesthetics to her breasts or you went there all on your own, those breasts are part of a whole person who deserves to be treated as such. That you know that, and simply choose to ignore, it is objectification.
The car has material agency, hence, so does the woman (and man).
Quoting Possibility
But how do we escape material agencies?
Quoting Possibility
I would suggest rephrasing that to say 'without denying mental agency.'
Quoting Possibility
It's not that one is choosing to ignore it, it's that one is choosing to acknowledge both mental and material agency.
Possibility, this whole debate is based on a flawed outlook in the OP which unfortunately chose to frame it a certain way that makes the choice seem black or white. The assumption is that wearing a certain style of clothing warrants being seen as an object. Obviously there are many reasons for wearing the clothing. One of them could be to feel good wearing the clothing as to exemplify what the culture deems as attractive (and thus what one has enculturated as attractive). This of course blends into what makes one prefer anything at all.. It is preference- one likes that look.. one took one's own aesthetic choices, often enculturated from broader archetypes, blending it with one's individual tastes often based on those broader ideas. Or it could be a signal to others that one wants to present as aesthetically attractive or sexually attractive. None of this limits, overshadows, or denies any other aspects of that person's agency or being. I think most people recognize this, which is why I am trying to steer the conversation more towards things like "What makes someone or certain traits attractive in the first place?" which to me is fertile ground for philosophical ideas.
I was thinking about your comments on roles and culture.
I remember once walking behind a family on the beach and they had a young boy around the age of ten or twelve with them. Ahead of them were a couple of girls sunbathing topless. As he went past the boy could not stop looking, nothing would have stopped him.
The thing is if he had grown up with girls around him going topless he probably wouldn’t have looked twice at them. So just because they’re naked breasts doesn’t make it sexual. Which makes me think of my comments about the African women who embellish their bodies. Their breasts are exposed all the time, so I’m guessing they don’t have great meaning sexually in terms of looking. But the embellishments obviously does have some meaning in that sense.
If a young boy growing up around topless women took their appearance for granted then doesn’t it suggest that the appeal in looking isn’t learned or cultural. (Though it could be said it’s cultural by the environment he was raised in). But why did the boy on the beach stare? Because they were breasts? Why would they attract him so strongly. At that age his exposure to cultural aesthetics is still pretty low. The only other reason I can think of is the difference. The difference that is so stark between him and females is the radical difference in their anatomy. Not their minds but how they look. We can’t really know someone’s mind, can we, enough to define the difference?
The boy sees the things that make the difference. Maybe this is part of the confusion for heterosexuals with homosexuals, they don’t understand not being drawn to difference.
The habits and so called cultural norms are sort of pasted on top of those perceptions and shock of the differences.
This has not turned out as well as my thoughts, but I hope the gist of it is there.
This is consistent with Feldman Barrett’s theory of constructed emotion. By my understanding, information is ‘the difference that makes a difference’, and increasing our capacity to integrate information (awareness, connection and collaboration) in balance with limited energy resources and continual effort and attention requirements is what conceptualises our reality. We look because it’s different, and we strive to understand different, because it helps us to predict our interaction with reality.
Here’s a thought: what if, when a boy is caught staring with fascination at topless women, he is taught to make the association with the concept ‘female’ instead of simply ‘breasts’? Or he is not made to feel ashamed of this fascination with difference, but guided in his understanding that breasts are a normal aspect of being a woman?
Yes, exactly.
Quoting Brett
I did mention that perhaps it's because these body parts are the "other". But that gets diminished with exposure, as you are saying too, so if this was something seen again and again, it wouldn't matter. It's something usually taboo, known to be covered in adults, and even by then some cultural elements of its broader significance is still there. It's not about cultural aesthetics, but its significance. This is something known to be private that now is not. That is something that would shock people initially.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Does there have to be a reason behind what is taboo that we understand? Can’t we just go with the idea that somehow parts of the body in different cultures become taboo. Though that word is so loaded I feel uncomfortable with it.
The boy seeing the bared breasts that were so radically different from him or his male friends then finds that they disappear behind clothing and are later revealed, but not completely, through the cut of clothing or type of clothing. There’s a powerful sense of curiosity sublimated there. He’s never going to forget that powerful sensation of difference that his culture diverts into something else. So his curiosity does become entangled with ideas of concealment and desire.
Quoting Possibility
Because who wants a society that wants that sort of control over a person?
And without breasts the girls look no different from him or his friends.
Edit: just as an added complication; in the age of trans gender breasts no longer mean female.
Yes, somehow they do. It's not hard why sex differences do.. If a culture wants sexual attraction to be a thing, then society can help this along by trying to make sex differences appear something that is mysterious, tantalizing, only revealing through its hidden nature. This is all by association, and thus becomes attached to endless male fascination, and then this becomes attached to more tropes, until its an echo chamber. And then you have whole social constructions around attractions, revealing, wanting someone to reveal, being tantalized by it, taken by it, attracted to it, etc.
Quoting Brett
Yes, so you get the point of its cultural construction.
I need to make myself more clear, or possibly I don’t have a point.
The boy sees the breasts and is stunned by the what is different from him and his friends. The breasts aren’t sexualised yet. But the sense of difference is powerful. That’s not cultural. But then entering puberty the breasts become sexualised and the hidden nature of them becomes the cultural context. Or the other way around. I don’t think culture creates a sexual direction or imperative, not on purpose anyway. It’s a combination of his initial interest, maybe the “other”, his first real experience of it, and the consequences of then being deprived of it through social mores.
If we all ignored your post how would you feel?
No, I'm agreeing with you, that that might be more-or-less the narrative. My only difference is that I think culture indeed helps create direction/imperative and on purpose. The hiding/revealing, aspect could have been by design, just as the neck rings. It's just a more subtle version of it. Society needs there to be attraction for procreation perhaps. Attraction becomes its own trope. Attraction itself becomes its own mythology.. made into romantic odes, love stories, romance stories (and much cruder stuff...), caricatured in pop-psychology and pop-biology, etc. But functionally, attraction becomes a way for procreation to eventually occur..in other words, it may not be automatic like the animal, so it becomes pushed to the cultural/social level (and then re-envisioned as if it was automatic, giving it false attribution).
But I agree, the initial fascination with the other, and especially an other that is concealed may be the foundation that is later refocused in other ways to make physical attraction a thing. I don't know. I'm also just theorizing. What I do know is, it may be too "just so" to say something like.. "It's just innate and natural". That just seems too case closed.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think you might have a point there. The sexualising of the female has to be ramped up to contend with cultural changes, even straight out boredom with life which results in falling population numbers.
I read recently that more and more young men in China, into their thirties, are not having sex or showing interest in the opposite sex. The consequence is fewer families and falling population numbers. Maybe not a problem in China right now, but when it comes to supporting the older generation where are the numbers going to come from.
Edit: I’ve often thought that if women bend men into the shape they want then men will just lose interest in them.
Well, now you are going into well-trodden areas of my core philosophy. I'm an antinatalist.. so the more we can catalyze less procreation, the better. One less person, is one less person who suffers and "deals with" life (with no consequences for the non-being that wasn't born). But this discussion is for another thread.
But generally speaking, yeah you might start seeing certain societies which start not valuing these long-held tropes and perhaps you do start seeing decline as people just don't care. The libido becomes less directed towards the things society wanted it directed towards to make the function that it intended occur.
This does sort of suggest that culture has a purpose that is beyond us. Which is kind of contradictory.
It absolutely has a purpose beyond us. Institutions are often created from historical contingencies and then the cultures surrounding those institutions take on a "life of their own". Individuals take on the values of the institutions so that the institutions can operate. Even birth itself is a sort of ideology that the current society is good and should be replicated, literally, unto another individual who then, in turn, internalizes those values so as to get by, in the "ways of life" of a society.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So how much control over it should we expect? And how do we know what to jettison and what to build on?
What word would you prefer I use? I’m simply stating that wishing, or rather expecting, to be perceived as something you do not appear to be is an unreasonable demand. Is that wrong in some way? The point is some women want to be treated like a piece of meat, and those women tend to dress a certain way so as to express that desire. Therefore, if you choose to dress in a similar way, you run the risk of being perceived in a similar way. And being perceived in a certain way increases the likelihood that you will be treated a certain way. Therefore, if you don’t want to be treated that way, you should dress in a way that distinguishes yourself from those who do.
We have very little control over it. Much of what we have now is historical contingency. We cannot change historical contingency. Marx, for example tried to find ways through revolution to steer historical contingency into determinism, but overshot the mark. There is nothing to keep. We enculturate and through our material circumstances are "free" to follow our contingent narrative. In this context, we are motivated out of little else by our own wills- survival, comfort/maintaining environment, boredom. Besides, this we get the contingencies of whatever various circumstances we must deal/suffer with.
I think you misunderstand me - I’m not saying to not refer to ‘breasts’ at all, but too often in teachable situations such as these, no reference is made to the woman herself, of which the breasts are an inseparable part. This promotes a conceptual distinction between ‘breasts’ as objects and ‘woman’ as agent. Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? Or do you think that threatens your freedom to objectify the female body if you choose to? This is not an accusation - it’s a genuine question.
So to follow these thoughts about culture to where they appear to direct us; for men to change their perception of women, to refuse to look at them in terms of anatomy and desire, is to create an environment of modified and moderate interest and consequently a fall in population numbers, which would seem contrary to our nature. Unless we have entered a new phase of our evolution (which would suit you).
Possibility suggests we raise boys with the idea that breasts mean female, as in who she really is instead of someone just desirable. I don’t think that’s even possible. I think nature would find a way around it. I think women may forget that there are other things that attract us to them: hair, smiles, jawline, eyes, clothes, the way they walk, talk and laugh. We can see this from a distance, which is where it begins.
If mens’ attitudes are encultured then so too must womens’. But then the argument goes that our culture is patriarchal and favours men over women and consequently women are objectified to suit the purposes of men. But what is the purpose of men? If it was not to seek women and form relationships that produced offspring there would be no purpose to anything else.
So men stare at women and for a reason. Women, by choice or enculturation, respond. Both by varying numbers and degrees. These are the brute facts.
In the end we can change it because some women feel it objectifies all women and we find that to be not just morally wrong but a poor environment for forming long term successful relationships. But we don’t know if it will contribute to forming better relationships or stifle them.
Quoting Possibility
It was a teachable situation for the boy, just not one you understand. He was confronted with the difference between the girls and himself. It wasn’t a sexual moment but an existential moment for himself.
Quoting Possibility
I don’t know if you have brothers but many of us are raised by our mothers and fathers to respect women, just as we were raised not to chose violence as a way of resolving differences. Anyway you’re making the assumption that the young boy at the beach is objectifying the girls. Why assume that? It’s possible that it opens him up to the world and the differences in that world that’s an essential part of his development.
Quoting Possibility
Well you’ve jumped from the boy to me so I am regarding it as an accusation. First of all you’ve made an assumption about the boy that suits you so that you can then challenge my “freedom” to objectify the female body, which is your second assumption.
My next door neighbour has been separated from her breasts. My wife has been separated from her womb. A woman's a woman for aye that. The surgeon who operated on my wife, (and all surgeons do this surely?) objectified her. It is a deliberate process of obscuring the body except for the 'part' one has to cut. Before and afterwards, she was a wonderfully warm human being, but for the operation she was a calculating butcher.
Alas for anyone who performs sex as if they were performing surgery.
Possibility!
You have to curb your appetite for dichotomizing. Remember that human's have both mental and material agency. You seem fixated on the mental, as if there is no aesthetic phenomenon to provide for not only the appreciation of same, but to provide for the proper volition. If your daughter wanted to marry a guy with missing teeth, who was 400 lbs., had bad hygiene, but was a doctor, kind, and considerate, what kind of dilemma would that present? You are forced to consider both features of human existence.
The heathy view, in your quoted scenario, would be to teach the child the value of both aesthetic beauty, along with the existential and social implications, including the ethical and intellectual considerations (i.e., Aristotle's theory of human nature) not to mention revelations applicable to cognitive science, human needs and motivations.
Instead, you seem hung-up on the stereotypical definition of objectification. That seems to only serve as a divisive political narrative between the sexes, as apposed to a glass half-full higher reaches of human nature approach. In other words, is your approach to admonish the child and make him/her feel embarrassed or in some way repressive about their appreciation of material agency?
So we are again back to nature in the debate of nature vs. nurture. And I was so happy on keeping it nurture :lol: . I focused on the revealing/concealing aspect of clothing because that's what the OP focused on. So now we are down to inextricable things, reasons lost to the mists of time.. tastes, preferences, appeal, etc. It's like music or art sometimes, you don't know why but something might make you drawn to it, excited by it, fascinated by it, etc. But I'll try to make the case that part of the mystery is still based on context of how one grew up, what one links these aesthetic apprehensions to from previous environment (probably in formative years), etc. It's more of a constructive narrative based on context of one's life experiences, the broader culture, historical contingency and the intertwining of all three. I think there is still an aspect of "other" here going on, for why it is often directed at a particular sex at all. The facial features have nuanced differences that can be perceived and weighed against societal and personal historical significances (retrospectively calling it a "preference" or "attraction").
Quoting Brett
Yes, this is possibly the crux of the issue. This is a two-way street. The significance of the revealing clothes is usually not cut-off from the significance of the response from the revealing clothes. They are inextricably intertwined and tied to cultural tropes. So if you think a trope is pernicious, or unnecessary, then to make it go away, the significance has to go away. If men stopped staring and responding to it, then it loses significance. Most likely then the only reasons to wear it is comfort or some other reason, and the women would stop putting significance on it too. It has stopped becoming a signifier. Perhaps all aspects of the revealing/concealing game would be diminished and then society would have to find other ways to promote attraction for the unfortunate effect of procreation.
And we would end up right back where we are now. The new qualities of attractiveness, for lack of a better phrase, would just be objectified again. It seems that if attractiveness is promoted at all, or attended to by males, females will feel objectified, no?
It is probably from both sides. One feels the need to stare, gaze. The other feels the need to be gazed perhaps. As others have said, the problem only lies when one goes out of the boundaries into diminishing the other's agency or not recognizing it, etc. So I think the word "objectified" is just an odd choice of word. If it means assigning no agency to someone who is clearly a thinking person, why would one do that? If it means find something attractive then, that seems the wrong way to apply that term. I guess the point is that some people can't get past how attractive they find someone, which is not the problem of the attractive person. But, as I said as a culture the whole attractiveness thing can be diminished all together.
I understand this, and I never said it was a sexual moment. My point (very poorly made, I admit) was that, even before it becomes sexual, the word concepts associated with experiences of a woman exposing her breasts rarely acknowledge female agency. While the ‘difference’ the boy notices between himself and these women on the beach is innocent in itself - and I am in no way suggesting that the boy is objectifying at this stage - it is often the word concepts from adults around him in relation to incidents such as these that contribute to later objectification.
Quoting Brett
I do have a brother - with four younger sisters and five years in a private boys’ school he was raised to be protective of girls, but not specifically to ‘respect’ women as having agency. It was a distinction that he (and I, as the closest to him in age) needed to deal with over the years. But we don’t need to go there.
I’m not assuming the young boy is objectifying the girls - you’re making that connection on your own. I have no issues with the boys looking - that’s a normal curiosity about the world. I’m suggesting that objectification starts to be constructed into how young boys and girls conceptualise these experiences, unless we are conscious of what words and concepts are spoken in association with them.
Sure, I get what you're saying here and it probably comes down to his we define 'objectification.' I do notice a lot of language around sex involves objectification, though - "get it," "take it" etc.
But sure - the animal comparison might be better. It's not too important to me though whether we use 'animal' or 'object' - I see sex as a break from civilization; a reminder that we're not just rational, civilized beings who take part in the routines or rituals required to maintain modern society. I do think this "animalism" or "objectification" or whatever you want to call it takes places from both sides though.
If by "studied" you mean formal study such as that provided by university professors, no. My happy, carefree college days, to the extent they were devoted to the study of philosophy, addressed Wittgenstein, Austin, Urmson, ordinary language philosophy generally, pragmatism as represented by Pierce and Dewey, grudgingly given courses on the history of philosophy, symbolic logic, and as a kind of lark (or a frolic and a detour as we lawyers might say) a tutorial on medieval philosophy (the tutor was a Fordham graduate turned pragmatist who was delighted to revisit what he learned at that Jesuit institution).
For good or ill, then, there has been no such study of aesthetics. I've read some Dewey and Santayana on the subject all by myself.
That said, while it's clear to me we're talking past each other, it's not clear to me that such a study is required here. What you think may be governed by a particular philosophy of aesthetics, it doesn't follow that I'm bound to accept it in order to have something worthwhile tosay. My suspicion is that I think of aesthetics as encompassing far more than you do. Nonetheless, it also is by no means clear to me that we're addressing a purely aesthetic question. You, of course, may believe that what we think of women and how we conduct ourselves towards them is a question of aesthetics. I think that would be a very limited view
Quoting 3017amen
Why on earth should I do so? Why would that be needed? I think answering those questions would be useful, first. But for me, there is no such world if you mean a "world" from which we're separate.
We're a part of the world. You may as well complain that I've failed to change the world.
Quoting 3017amen
I'm arguing that a woman is not a car. Must I consider her a car in order to know what is truly the case? Would I do so if I had studied aesthetics?
Beauty is both subjective and objective phenomena.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Cognitive attachment-theory posits that the material agency has value in aesthetic judgements. So the question is, why does one love the object-baby when it first comes out of the womb? You can't love it's Platonic mind/mental agency can you?
Quoting schopenhauer1
What it's directed at is the object, right?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Platonism is different than the Plato's view of aesthetics. He suggested inner beauty, or in our discussion here, mental agency over material agency. (Material agency being subordinate to mental agency.) The spin-off is the metaphorical beauty found in other mental aspects of life; like beauty in the harmony of a mathematical formula (which is ironically an objective truth), and other subjective mental activities associated with the virtues of mind and cognition.
I agree.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yeah, I don’t know how much anyone agrees on the meaning of the term. To me it means making someone feel violated in some way, whether intentional or not, due to valuing only a part of the person as opposed to the whole. Only appreciating someone for their looks, status, profession, etc. would all qualify in my opinion. Anytime you select an aspect of their person and value them solely based on their ability to meet your standards in that regard.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The issue is that no matter how horny someone makes you, you don’t have the right to judge their value based solely on that criteria. Or, conversely, no matter how repulsive you find someone to be, you don’t have the right to discriminate against them for that reason alone.
No. I'm saying that you are denying the value that is associated with material agency.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
(Then why did you use a cheeseburger as an argument to make your point? ) If you studied aesthetics, you would recognize that objects provide for material agency judgements.
Likewise, a human object provides for both material and mental agency judgements. You're implying they are mutually exclusive. I've never said that. I've been making the point that not only are we unable to escape that physical human phenomena and/or sensory experience, we don't consider it for what it is (in both male/female) as a value judgement; something virtuous to the human condition. You seem to be stuck in the stereotypical definition (pathological/dysfunctional) of objectification of humans... .
The power of jargon is limited, as its use should be. Legal jargon may serve in communications with other lawyers and with judges, but must be explained to clients and others (e.g., jurors) who are encompassed by and function in the legal system. Indulge me, and explain just what you think "material agency" to be.
I assume it's intended to ascribe agency to material things in some fashion. Now value is something I would say results from our interaction with the rest of the world in particular contexts, so I have no problem with the assertion that value derives from that interaction. Material things may be involved in such an interaction, but value is in the interaction, not in the person or material thing which interact.
Quoting 3017amen
A cheeseburger was used to emphasize the fact that there is a difference between a woman (a person) and an object or, alternatively, that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that a woman is an object, there is a difference between woman as object and cheeseburger as object (some objects are different from other objects, and we treat them differently, or should do so).
I venture to hope you acknowledge there's a difference of some kind between a woman and a cheeseburger. If you do, and if you nonetheless claim they're both objects, you must explain why one object is different from another. So, it's necessary to distinguish among objects, make categories of objects. Human objects and non-human objects; animal objects and human objects, etc. Object type X is different from object type Y, and each is to be treated differently or is perceived differently. Then it's necessary to explain why treatment and perception of objects differ, etc. It seems a long way to go to establish a woman isn't the same as a cheeseburger.
Why not just acknowledge that's the case, and that our interaction with and perception of other living organisms differ from our interactions with inanimate objects because they're significantly different in various respects, and that's why it's improper to treat a woman as a cheeseburger? There would be no need then to "escape from the world of objects" or any other world, for that matter.
Oh yes grasshopper, it's called philosophical Materialism 101.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
It's not whether they 'may be involved'. They ARE involved; no escape, as it were.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Of course there is. Again, you are not reading what I'm saying. Did I ever make them (material and mental agency) mutually exclusive?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
You keep getting hung-up on this dichotomization, and the stereotypical (pathological/dysfunctional) definition of objectification. Not sure what to tell you there. I still recommend study of the philosophy of aesthetics...honestly, it would do you a world of good... .
I see. I'll try your patience no longer, then.
No worries. Materialism, Aesthetics, et. al. are just to name a few concepts worth wrapping your brain around. For example, just as a sort of synopsis of Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, this doesn't suggest 'dichotomization'... , know what I mean vern?
Irony: The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
Dichotomy: division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups:
a dichotomy between thought and action.
LOL
I hear you - the surgeon still has the patient’s express consent, though, and takes care to minimise scarring and other concerns she might have as a human being. During the operation, a surgeon sometimes needs to make decisions about someone’s body without the benefit of their express consent. Keeping in mind that their patient might not appreciate that choice being made for them, and taking into account who they are and what their wishes might be in making such a decision is part of their responsibility. A good surgeon would lay out the risks prior to the operation, and ascertain their patient’s wishes if it came down to it. It’s not an easy job, and can be mentally and emotionally challenging for that reason. But I would hope they’re not a calculating butcher for the operation.
I’m not objecting to the ‘animal’ or ‘object’ association in relation to sex. It’s the compartmentalising that bothers me. As humans, we can be seen as ‘lines and shape’ in relation to the world, as well as ‘physical’, ‘animal’, intentional thinking being and meaningful existence - all at once. By presenting one aspect during an interaction, we are not denying the other aspects of our existence. The relationship we have with cultural traditions aside (ie. during private interactions such as sex), this is how we relate to each other, human to human.
There seems to be certain cultural or conceptual structures, however, that evidently permit us to ignore, isolate or exclude the ‘higher’ or more complex aspects of another’s humanity under certain circumstances. Women, children, ethnic minorities, criminals, etc have historically been denied capacity for thought, intentionality and/or meaningful existence within certain cultural and conceptual structures - not necessarily out of a conscious desire to control, but more from this fascination with ‘difference’ that makes demands on our limited effort and attention, developing into a fear of unpredictability or uncertainty, and the potential for pain, humiliation and loss/lack to be experienced as a result.
Unpacking these cultural traditions and restructuring concepts so that all human interactions, at least, recognise intentional, thinking beings with meaningful existence - even as they present as ‘physical’ or ‘animal’ or, as in Brett’s artist model example, as ‘lines and shape’ - may seem too much to expect of society as a whole. But I can expect it of my own interactions, at least. And I can encourage others to be conscious of their interactions, and strive to do the same, despite what cultural traditions permit. That’s all I’m aiming for.
Perhaps if you could prime me a bit I might approach the book with the right attitude.
In other words we're playing a rigged fixed game.
Yeah, I found that out the hard way. Eric Von Markovic where were you when I needed you? :up:
I'd rather have a small blonde Portuguese skier who when she's not training does abstract painting, practises yoga, brews her own beer, really likes making home movies, and suffers neck-down alopecia.
Interesting...sort of a hidden agenda there, imagine that :chin: Where's Freud when you need him!?
I put it in harsh terms, for emphasis. But traditionally surgeons do not operate on members of their own family precisely because they cannot be expected to be able to maintain that dis-passionate objectivity that is required to take a knife to living flesh. Without the objectification, being a surgeon would be too traumatic foe anyone except a sadist.
But it looks like the incels are taking over here so I think I'll go waste my time elsewhere for a bit.
And he’s basing his research into the subconscious of women on years of experience as a woman and in discussion with women, or years of observing from an external position of lack, pain, humiliation and loss?
He’s justifying a position of suffering with baseless speculation. It’s like ancient claims that the soap opera style dramas of the gods are the cause of human misery. You clearly haven’t read the rest of the thread, or you’d recognise that you’re not preaching to the converted here (well, maybe one or two). You’re going to have to bring something more than incels venting frustration.
[i][b]"You lovely ladies in your leather and lace
A thousand lips I would love to taste"[/b][/i]
~The Glimmer Twins, '74 :razz: