On "sexual objectification"

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Disclaimer: I admire female muscularity.

Now, just an observation: On one hand, if we appreciate, say, a woman's figure we are objectifying her. On the other hand, if we do not appreciate muscularity on a woman we are being oppressive.

Darned if you do, darned if your don't.

 

[quatona]

Now, just an observation:[...] On the other hand, if we do not appreciate muscularity on a woman we are being oppressive.

Where and when have you "observed" this?

 

[Skaloop]

Disclaimer: I admire female muscularity. Now, just an observation: On one hand, if we appreciate, say, a woman's figure we are objectifying her. On the other hand, if we do not appreciate muscularity on a woman we are being oppressive. Darned if you do, darned if your don't.

If you judge someone based solely on their physical characteristcs, favourably or unfavourably, you are objectifying that person.

 

[clivwill]

I find it quite ridiculous, no matter what the point of any argument is:

These are the facts:

1. Women were made by God to give comfort to man
2. Women are physically beautiful beings made to be attractive to man
3. It is in a man's natural instinct to want to look at and be pleasured by a woman

When we go against naturality, we create an illusion of life and when that illusion fails it only brings more technicalities.

 

[Eudaimonist]

These are the facts:

1. Women were made by God to give comfort to man
2. Women are physically beautiful beings made to be attractive to man
3. It is in a man's natural instinct to want to look at and be pleasured by a woman

You are using some definition of "fact" that I'm not used to.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sammy-San]

If you judge someone based solely on their physical characteristcs, favourably or unfavourably, you are objectifying that person.

Why do women always complain about how the media sexually objectifies women and how "wrong" it is, yet when men are objectified (like in magazines and even in movies)-thats totally okay? What a wierd double standard.

 

[JohnLocke]

First, I would beg a correction in the definition, "Sexual objectification is the view of people solely as sexual objects of desire."

I will assert that using this definition you can clearly see the difference between a fitness/body building magazine that displays a person's body and pornography. In both cases, the person whose body is displayed is objectified, but apparently one is objectionable [irony] and the other not.

To put it in more traditional philosophical terms. It is immoral to view a human being only as means for sexual gratification. It is not the recognition of beauty or attraction that is objectionable, but forgetting or discounting the basic human dignity of the person whose body, voice, w/e you find attractive.

So, to your point, teaching young people that they are entitled to respect and dignity as a human being and not a slab of meat is neither morally wrong nor distracts from "real victimization" etc.

[

 

[Skaloop]

I find it quite ridiculous, no matter what the point of any argument is:

These are the facts:

1. Women were made by God to give comfort to man
2. Women are physically beautiful beings made to be attractive to man
3. It is in a man's natural instinct to want to look at and be pleasured by a woman

When we go against naturality, we create an illusion of life and when that illusion fails it only brings more technicalities.

Great example of the sort of attitude towards women that needs to be eradicated.

 

[poolerboy0077]

First, I would beg a correction in the definition, "Sexual objectification is the view of people solely as sexual objects of desire."

I will assert that using this definition you can clearly see the difference between a fitness/body building magazine that displays a person's body and pornography. In both cases, the person whose body is displayed is objectified, but apparently one is objectionable [irony] and the other not.

To put it in more traditional philosophical terms. It is immoral to view a human being only as means for sexual gratification. It is not the recognition of beauty or attraction that is objectionable, but forgetting or discounting the basic human dignity of the person whose body, voice, w/e you find attractive.

So, to your point, teaching young people that they are entitled to respect and dignity as a human being and not a slab of meat is neither morally wrong nor distracts from "real victimization" etc.

[

Your distinction doesn't really make much of a difference to my central criticism. Moreover, you've merely asserted in your last sentence that sexual depictions in magazines, etc. relate to a woman's worth and dignity.

 

[Cearbhall]

.

 

[Cearbhall]

I find it quite ridiculous, no matter what the point of any argument is:

These are the facts:

1. Women were made by God to give comfort to man
2. Women are physically beautiful beings made to be attractive to man
3. It is in a man's natural instinct to want to look at and be pleasured by a woman

When we go against naturality, we create an illusion of life and when that illusion fails it only brings more technicalities.

That escalated quickly. What on Earth...

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

If you judge someone based solely on their physical characteristcs, favourably or unfavourably, you are objectifying that person.

Here is what I said:

"Disclaimer: I admire female muscularity.

Now, just an observation: On one hand, if we appreciate, say, a woman's figure we are objectifying her. On the other hand, if we do not appreciate muscularity on a woman we are being oppressive.

Darned if you do, darned if your don't."


I did not say anything about "judging" any person. I said that I admire a particular feature of the female body that some women choose to develop and highlight.

I said that if we appreciate--recognize the value of--some features of women's bodies we are told that we are objectifying women, but if we fail to appreciate a certain feature of women's bodies we are told that that is being oppressive. It is an inconsistency.

People often tell me that they like my hair right after I get a haircut. They are not "judging" me, let alone judging me "based solely" on anything. They are simply responding aesthetically to a feature of my body: my hairstyle.

Everybody does it all of the time. Some people like blue eyes. Some people like red hair. Etc.

 

[MehGuy]

Why do women always complain about how the media sexually objectifies women and how "wrong" it is, yet when men are objectified (like in magazines and even in movies)-thats totally okay? What a wierd double standard.

Because they are hypocritical vermin..

 

[Embedded]

Let this thread be about sexual objectification as advanced by feminists. Read before responding.

___​

Sexual objectification, as defined by many feminists, is the viewing of people solely as depersonalized objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own.

As stated there isn't much of a problem with the definition or its implementation in principle, but rather with it being put into practice.

Actually... there is a problem with that definition. I bolded the particular word I have a problem with. Instead try replacing the word viewing with the word treating in that sentence:

Sexual objectification, as defined by many feminists, is the treating of people solely as depersonalized objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own.​

It may seem a trivial change to some but I think it is an important distinction to be made between how you see a person and how you behave towards that person. The former is internal to your own mind and the latter is external.

Everything from magazines featuring women's bodies to gazing at a woman in person walking down the street are cited by proponents of the above definition as supporting evidence.

OK

Such people appear to view any interaction of a male to a female as degrading because it is failing to take into account the full appreciation of a woman's whole humanity: her hopes, her fears, her aspirations, her ambitions, her regrets -- everything that makes that woman who she is, according to such people, must be central to the interaction and completely fleshed out. This is how equality is defined.

Woah... "any interaction" ? I have never heard of such a concept. You jumped from a rather vague definition to an absolute application of that definition to every situation. Looks a bit like a straw man to me.

If someone looks at a female and appreciates her visually, one is failing to take into account all of the above qualities.

Doing one thing does not automatically exclude doing the others.

This is oppression, as they see it. Their attitude is an unrealistic and highly ludicrous demand of social interaction both interpersonally and at the level of society.

I would agree with you if this were true... but it isn't, so I don't.

None of us go throughout our lives regarding every single human we encounter in this way. It isn't as though such feminists engage in deep, philosophical conversation with the cashier at Walgreens or Albertsons lest they risk objectifying them for not taking into account their entire humanity, as opposed to simply using them for the service of getting their things checked out. (Presumably they use the self checkout on moral grounds.)

So now you have constructed this absolute interpretation of a vague definition you want to argue against it.

Advancing this attitude, which is becoming pervasive amongst young women today, is harmful. It distracts us from real victimization and harmful attitudes toward women by casting a net so wide as to nearly encompass all men, their sexuality and human interaction.

I think you need to back up your argument with some real evidence that it is what "these feminists" actually want. I don't think you can.

 

[Embedded]

And those gain disproportionate influence. Why are they not being challenged in the media?

Who are these people that have such a huge influence in the media? What programs do they appear on? What mainstream media columns do they write?

Yes, goodness knows where I got that idea from given that feminists in the west spend their time bullying male scientists into apologising for a shirt they wear,

Yes... I am a little familiar with #shirtgate. What evidence do you have that he was at all bullied?

 

[Joykins]

I thought objectification was more like treating/viewing a woman as an object (for sexual gratification) *as opposed to* treating her like another human being that has thoughts and feelings. You don't have to become intimately familiar with her thoughts and feelings to have basic respect for the state. No one expects you to have deep philosophical conversations with the checkout cashier, or not to notice when someone attractive walks by, or not to enjoy sex with women.

We do expect you not to catcall, pinch our butts, treat/talk about us like walking vaginas or like we are categorically stupid, or stare like some stalkery stalker type. That is, unless you know someone well enough to know that she would like this; intimacy changes things.

 

[MehGuy]

Same for women who objectify men.

 

[Embedded]

Same for women who objectify men.

And when does that happen?
Sometimes, sure.
But whole industries and the structures of society is not based on it.

 

[Cute Tink]

What is masculinity? What does it mean to be masculine?

I think that, used in that context, the war is against anything normally attributed to men.

 

[Skaloop]

Same for women who objectify men.

Yes, of course.