What is Sexual Objectification

[TC]

Sexual Objectification
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


“Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:
(1) instrumentality:
the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
(2) denial of autonomy:
the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
(3) inertness:
the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
(4) fungibility:
the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
(5) violability:
the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
(6) ownership:
the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
(7) 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:
(8) reduction to body:
the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
(9) reduction to appearance:
the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
(10) silencing:
the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak…

…

It has been pointed out by some feminist thinkers that women in our society are more identified and associated with their bodies than are men, and, to a greater extent than men, they are valued for how they look (Bordo 1993, 143; Bartky 1990). In order to gain social acceptability, women are under constant pressure to ‘correct’ their bodies and appearance more generally, and make them conform to the ideals of feminine appearance of their time, the so-called ‘norms of feminine appearance’ (the standards of appearance women feel they should be living up to) (Jennifer Saul 2003, 144). Some feminists have argued that, in being preoccupied with their looks, women treat themselves as things to be decorated and gazed upon.


In her book Femininity and Domination, Sandra Bartky uses Marx's theory of alienation to explain the objectification that results from women's preoccupation with their appearance. A feature of Marx's theory of alienation is the fragmentation of the human person, this ‘splintering of human nature into a number of misbegotten parts’. For Marx, labour is the most distinctively human activity, and the product of labour is the exteriorisation of the worker's being. Under capitalism, however, workers are alienated from the products of their labour, and consequently their person is fragmented (Bartky 1990, 128–9).


Bartky believes that women in patriarchal societies also undergo a kind of fragmentation ‘by being too closely identified with [their body]… [their] entire being is identified with the body, a thing which… has been regarded as less inherently human than the mind or personality’ (Bartky 1990, 130). All the focus is placed on a woman's body, in a way that her mind or personality are not adequately acknowledged. A woman's person, then, is fragmented. Bartky believes that through this fragmentation a woman is objectified, since her body is separated from her person and is thought as representing the woman (Bartky 1990, 130).


Bartky explains that, typically, objectification involves two persons, one who objectifies and one who is objectified. (This is also the idea of objectification put forward by Kant as well as by MacKinnon and Dworkin.) However, as Bartky points out, objectifier and objectified can be one and the same person. Women in patriarchal societies feel constantly watched by men, much like the prisoners of the Panopticon (model prison proposed by Bentham), and they feel the need to look sensually pleasing to men (Bartky 1990, 65). According to Bartky: ‘In the regime of institutionalised heterosexuality woman must make herself ‘object and prey’ for the man. … Woman lives her body as seen by another, by an anonymous patriarchal Other’ (Bartky 1990, 73). This leads women to objectify their own persons. Bartky argues that the woman ‘[takes] toward her own person the attitude of the man. She will then take erotic satisfaction in her physical self, revelling in her body as a beautiful object to be gazed at and decorated’. Such an attitude is called ‘narcissism’, which is defined by Bartky as the infatuation with one's bodily being (Bartky 1990, 131–2).


In being infatuated with their bodily beings, Bartky argues that women learn to see and treat themselves as objects to be gazed at and decorated, they learn to see themselves as though from the outside. Narcissism, as Simone de Beauvoir also points out, ‘consists in the setting up of the ego as a double “stranger”’ (Beauvoir 1961, 375). The adolescent girl ‘becomes an object and she sees herself as an object; she discovers this new aspect of her being with surprise: it seems to her that she has been doubled; instead of coinciding exactly with herself, she now begins to exist outside’ (Beauvoir 1961, 316) (For more on Simone de Beauvoir, see the entry ‘Simone de Beauvoir’.) However, this ‘stranger’ who inhabits women's consciousness, Bartky writes, is hardly a stranger; it is, rather, the woman's own self (Bartky 1993, 134).


Bartky talks about the disciplinary practices that produce a feminine body and are the practices through which women learn to see themselves as objects. First of all, according to her, there are those practices that aim to produce a body of a certain size and shape: women must conform to the body ideal of their time (i.e. a slim body with large breasts), which, Bartky holds, requires women to subject their bodies to the ‘tyranny of slenderness’ (put themselves through constant dieting and exercise) (Bartky 1990, 65–7). Susan Bordo also emphasises the fact that women are more obsessed with dieting than are men. This is linked to serious diseases like anorexia and bulimia. 90% of all anorexics, Bordo points out, are women (Bordo 1993, 143, 154). Furthermore, a large number of women have plastic surgery, most commonly liposuction and breast enlargement, in order to make their bodies conform to what is considered to be the ideal body.


According to Bartky, the second category of these disciplinary practices

that produce a feminine body are those that aim to control the body's gestures, postures, and movements. Women, she holds, are more restricted than men in the way they move, and they try to take up very little space as opposed to men, who tend to expand to the space available. Women's movements are also restrained by their uncomfortable clothes and shoes (Bartky 1990, 68–9). The final category of the disciplinary practices, Bartky holds, are those that are directed towards the display of a woman's body as an ‘ornamented surface’: women must take care of their skin and make it soft, smooth, hairless and wrinkle-free, they must apply make-up to disguise their skin's imperfections. Our culture demands the ‘infantilisation’ of women's bodies and faces (Bartky 1990, 71–2).
According to Bartky: ‘… whatever else she [a woman] may become, she is importantly a body designed to please or to excite’ (Bartky 1990, 80). Iris Marion Young adds that women's preoccupation with their appearance suppresses the body potential of women: ‘Developing a sense of our bodies as beautiful objects to be gazed at and decorated requires suppressing a sense of our bodies as strong, active subjects…’ (Young, 1979).


Who is responsible for women's situation? According to Bartky: ‘The disciplinary power that inscribes femininity in the female body is everywhere and it is nowhere; the disciplinarian is everyone and yet no one in particular’ (Bartky 1990, 74). The message that women should look more feminine is everywhere: it is reinforced by parents, teachers, male partners, and it is expressed in various ways throughout the media. Men, then, are not the only ones to blame for women's situation. Because of the pervasiveness of this ‘disciplinary power that inscribes femininity’, women's constant preoccupation with appearance has come to be regarded as something natural and voluntary; it is something that women have internalised. Therefore, it is far from easy for women, in Bartky's view, to free themselves from their objectification.
”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification

[StalinFanboy]

I thought this was really interesting, and I really liked the linkage between objectification of the body and alienation. It made a lot more sense to me this way.

I do have a question though. I find my partner to be physically attractive and I like to look at her body, but I don't see this as a separate aspect of who she is and I have a lot of respect for her mind and what she does with her life. Would you, TC (or anyone else for that matter), consider me finding her physically attractive and enjoying the way her body looks to be objectification in the sense described above (in a fundementally destructive - what else is alienation but destructive? - way)?

[TC]

I do have a question though. I find my partner to be physically attractive and I like to look at her body, but I don't see this as a separate aspect of who she is and I have a lot of respect for her mind and what she does with her life. Would you, TC (or anyone else for that matter), consider me finding her physically attractive and enjoying the way her body looks to be objectification in the sense described above (in a fundementally destructive - what else is alienation but destructive? - way)?

I would answer this but, you wrote to me randomly in a PM:


You realize you're an idiot, right?And my policy is to dissincentivize trollish flaming by not responding to people who insult me unless they apologize and behave decently towards me in the future.

Yes, despite popular belief, people on the Internet are real people who remember things - you can't behave inappropriately towards someone, then wait two months and think that you can start interacting with them again with no explanation.

[gorillafuck]

(8) reduction to body:
the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
(9) reduction to appearance:
the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;Do these two things qualifying as objectifying mean that promiscuous sex is wrong? Because obviously promiscuous sex is based on initial attraction, as are a lot of relationships.

[TC]

Do these two things qualifying as objectifying mean that promiscuous sex is wrong? Because obviously promiscuous sex is based on initial attraction, as are a lot of relationships.

You don't have to reduce people to how they look to have sex with multiple people. But if you are only using someone as an object for your pleasure, reducing them to body parts, to appearence, rather than connecting with them as a subject, as a full human being - than yes, there is something wrong about that - not necessarily wrong as in "hurting" them (though it might- it might not too, they might be so used to being treated that way it has no emotional affect on them) - but wrong because in the background of gender hierarchy it reinforces that hierarchy. It does so by crystalizing the relationship between man and woman as one where women are merely instrumental as tools or objects for men's pleasure. This is not to say that women do not also sometimes regard men only with respect to their appearence, but because the gender hierarchy formed by patriarchy favors male dominance and female submission, this view of men has no objectifying effect in that there is no force behind it so it is unable to transform men into objects for women's pleasure.

[gorillafuck]

Uh, can you explain that in a clearer way?

Also why would I want to connect as a human being with someone who I very clearly just want to have a one night stand with? If you meet someone at a club and you have sex with them and then don't see them again, you do it because you think they're good looking. Not because you really connected about views on literature.


This is not to say that women do not also sometimes regard men only with respect to their appearence, but because the gender hierarchy formed by patriarchy favors male dominance and female submission, this view of men has no objectifying effect in that there is no force behind it so it is unable to transform men into objects for women's pleasure.Forceful sex? That is called rape, but I'm guessing thats not what you mean?

I have no idea what you mean by "force".

[Summerspeaker]

If you meet someone at a club and you have sex with them and then don't see them again, you do it because you think they're good looking.

From what I can tell, one-night stands come from a variety of factors that often have little or nothing to do with appearance. Some folks look for a temporary sex partner for complex personal and emotional reasons that include concerns like comfort, health, and status.

[gorillafuck]

I'm estimating that the majority of them are because a real lot of people just wanna have sex with people who are attractive.

[TC]

Uh, can you explain that in a clearer way?

Also why would I want to connect as a human being with someone who I very clearly just want to have a one night stand with? If you meet someone at a club and you have sex with them and then don't see them again, you do it because you think they're good looking. Not because you really connected about views on literature.

You're basically just saying that you would want to objectify them. I can imagine other reasons for having sex outside of a monogomous relationship (such as wanting physical and emotional intimacy with a real person who matters as an individual, rather than a sex toy). But if you would just want to objectify them then I'm sorry but I don't need to confirm that that is okay and not problematic in a society with gender hierarchy.




I have no idea what you mean by "force".Force in this context meant the ability to enforce one's view of another - to take what you believe to be the relevant features of another person to you and to make them the socially relevant features of that person. That is the nature of objectification and it is why men can sexually objectify women and not vice-versa, because men have social power behind their views of women as sex objects but no social power exists behind a parallel view held by women.

To use a more vivid example less close to heart, a slave master's view of a slave as a tool for the slave master's desires is not entirely illusionary, in that while the slave is not naturally a tool for the slave masters desires, the fact that the slave master views the slave this way reinforces a social reality that the slave is in fact reduced to a mere tool or object.

When the powerful people in a relationship hold a view of subordinates, they give that view social reality because social expectations and standards conform to the views of the powerful.

[gorillafuck]

You're basically just saying that you would want to objectify them. I can imagine other reasons for having sex outside of a monogomous relationship (such as wanting physical intimacy with a real person and not a sex toy). But if you would just want to objectify them then I'm sorry but I don't need to confirm that that is okay and not problematic in a society with gender hierarchy.Sorry, I don't need your approval to have sexual desire and find attractive women attractive and not be particularly interested in every woman who I find attractive's personal life.


To use a more vivid example less close to heart, a slave master's view of a slave as a tool for the slave master's desires is not entirely illusionary, in that while the slave is not naturally a tool for the slave masters desires, the fact that the slave master views the slave this way reinforces a social reality that the slave is in fact reduced to a mere tool or object.This is one of the most insensitive and downright offensive comparisons I've ever heard on this site.

[Summerspeaker]

This is one of the most insensitive and downright offensive comparisons I've ever heard on this site.

Not at all. Dude supremacy exists as a constant global human rights crisis. We're not talking about some minor or superficial issue here, but the daily oppression of billions.

[gorillafuck]

Not at all. Dude supremacy exists as a constant global human rights crisis. We're not talking about some minor or superficial issue here, but the daily oppression of billions.That statement isn't evidence to support the idea that what's being discussed in this thread is similar to enslaving entire races....

[Pretty Flaco]

I don't see how anyone, regardless of sex or orientation, finding another person physically attractive is generally harmful. In fact, when I find out someone genuinely finds me very attractive, which is often, I feel pretty damn good. :lol:

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Wait, are feminists against male masturbation? Since the act involves picturing or using a picture of a women, does this count as objectification? Does this mean guys pleasuring themselves is an act of patriarchy? Because really those who aren't able to have sex for whatever reasons might not be too happy about the thought.

[Summerspeaker]

Wait, are feminists against male masturbation? Since the act involves picturing or using a picture of a women, does this count as objectification?

Wait just a second. Dudes can't masturbate without imagining or seeing the image of a woman? Really? That's not in any definition of the term I've ever come across. The extent that dudes believe this shows the level of gender conditioning prevalent in this society.

[Pretty Flaco]

Wait just a second. Dudes can't masturbate without imagining or seeing the image of a woman? Really? That's not in any definition of the term I've ever come across. The extent that dudes believe this shows the level of gender conditioning prevalent in this society.

I think when doing something sexual most people would think of something sexual.

[Summerspeaker]

I think when doing something sexual most people would think of something sexual.

Are you suggesting that "woman" = "something sexual" to dudes? This would support the radical feminist concept of women as the sex class. Also, what do two or more humans engaged in sex acts think about?

[Tim Finnegan]

This is one of the most insensitive and downright offensive comparisons I've ever heard on this site.
Given that in many cultures, contemporary and historical, women have been considered a quite literal item of property, I'm not sure that it's at all inappropriate. A master-slave relationship has repeatedly demonstrate itself to be the logical conclusion of patriarchy. (I mean, Roman women weren't even allowed their own names until the Imperial era! Even male slaves had names, but they got numbers. Numbers!)


Are you suggesting that "woman" = "something sexual" to dudes? This would support the radical feminist concept of women as the sex class. Also, what do two or more humans engaged in sex acts think about?
That's a bit unfair, I think. Revolutionary Awesome's statement could equally apply to women and queer men- which, in my admittedly limited experience, holds true. The problem isn't that straight men see women's bodies as potentially sexual, but that women's bodies are seen as sexual above all else, and that only the sexualisation of women by men (and no other combination) is deemed socially acceptable.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Wait just a second. Dudes can't masturbate without imagining or seeing the image of a woman? Really? That's not in any definition of the term I've ever come across. The extent that dudes believe this shows the level of gender conditioning prevalent in this society.
Or men if they are gay. I just meant that people may usually need to observe something stimulating to engage in the act. I don't think I could just sit and think about televisions while doing that.

[Summerspeaker]

I would suggest that whatever people think or don't think about while masturbating comes from human constructions of gender and sexuality. There's no natural option. Everything deserves critical scrutiny. By my values, if dudes currently only wank by objectifying women, then that indicts dudedly masturbation habits more than objectification theory.

[Pretty Flaco]

Are you suggesting that "woman" = "something sexual" to dudes? This would support the radical feminist concept of women as the sex class. Also, what do two or more humans engaged in sex acts think about?

A woman could masturbate while thinking sexually of men. Being sexually attracted to someone and wishing for sex occurs in both sexes with any orientation.

[Summerspeaker]

A woman could masturbate while thinking sexually of men.

Anybody could think about most anything while masturbating; I certainly have. Dudes thinking about women and women thinking about dudes, however, suggests a specific construction of gender and sexuality.

[Pretty Flaco]

Anybody could think about most anything while masturbating; I certainly have. Dudes thinking about women and women thinking about dudes, however, suggests a specific construction of gender and sexuality.

How? Are you saying that sexual orientation is a social construct?

[Summerspeaker]

How? Are you saying that sexual orientation is a social construct?

Yes, along with gender itself. One of the specifics of contemporary sexuality would be the narrative of masturbation y'all are articulating. I'm hearing that masturbation requires gendered sexual fantasy centering on an imagined body with the appropriate parts. Are you sure folks don't, can't, or shouldn't fantasize about acts, situations, or sensations rather women or dudes? Are you sure they need to imagine at all?

[Pretty Flaco]

Yes, along with gender itself. One of the specifics of contemporary sexuality would be the narrative of masturbation y'all are articulating. I'm hearing that masturbation requires gendered sexual fantasy centering on an imagined body with the appropriate parts. Are you sure folks don't, can't, or shouldn't fantasize about acts, situations, or sensations rather women or dudes? Are you sure they need to imagine at all?

I'm not physically attracted to the same gender. And I'm not sure what the bolded part means. I don't know about everyone else, but I imagine sexual acts when I masturbate.

[Kuppo Shakur]

You call yourselves marxists?
I read Capital while I masturbate.
Y'all are sexist.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm not physically attracted to the same gender.
Well, the very fact that you're lining up physical attraction with a social identity shows that these things aren't as neat as all that. Presumably, you have certain preferences in regards to both biology and gender-presentation, but neither of them represent any objectively consistent binary, so there must be something- either individual or social but mostly like both- going on to make them line up in your head.

[jake williams]

It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object.
This is going to sound horribly semantic, but I think this all partly has to do with the definition of "object", as well as "treating".

The term "object" is ambiguous in abstract definitions. In popular (and political) usage it typically refers to the category of non-human physical entities, and thus its usage is related to the systematic dehumanization of, in this case, women.

But it's also a grammatical category. Now, this particular grammatical category has received considerable attention because of its potential (and sometimes actual) symbolic significance. Humans are taken to be active, and passivity is conversely inhuman, much as men are taken to be active, and women, passive. At the end of the day, though, the grammatical object of some action isn't intrinsically or necessarily dehumanized, much less categorically oppressed.

Whether or not the grammatical "female objects" of men's heterosexual attention are in practice dehumanized is a separate question. I don't see any serious argument that it does in all cases. Lots of explicitly dehumanizing misogyny linked to sexual objectification exists, certainly. But two distinctions need to be made.

First, I think the difference is substantive between symbolic "objectification" and the actual belief, however passive or implicit, that some person is less than human. Again, a person can be the object of an action without being dehumanized. The fact that oppressed groups of people are the objects of some particular (harmful or oppressive) action or actions - and are systematically symbolically deprived of agency - does not imply any necessary relationship between either of those, and the status as a grammatical object.

Further, the process of conceptually isolating some non-human aspects of a "human object" (so every human has physical properties - weight, colour, temperature, etc.) is separate from the process whereby the existence of human aspects - of agency and independence as a person - is denied. The real practical question of whether or not men being sexually attracted to women they dislike personally are being oppressive relies on the notion that physical sexual attraction on its own doesn't exist, a notion I think is vacuous.

Secondly, no real mechanism (that I know of) is proposed by which the basest symbolic (grammatical) relationship is actually transformed into a social, material one - especially since the oppressed are capable of being grammatical subjects without obviating their own oppression. That I believe someone to be less than human is irrelevant unless I have material social power. It can't create that social power and can only indirectly even reinforce it.


Thus, for two separate reasons I can't see how male heterosexual thought where women are the grammatical object is intrinsically dehumanizing, or oppressive, or even really a social act.

I hope I'm not projecting semanticism onto anyone unfairly, but I think the semantic-symbolic argument is made often enough and seriously enough that it deserves to be addressed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow, another RevLeft word to add to my vocabulary: "dudely". (Seriously, SS, the constant use of the word "dude" is getting old).

I wonder if cavemen/cavewomen masturbated, and if so, what they masturbated to. Someone should investigate into the socially-constructed act of rubbing one out through the ages of antiquity.


And I'm not sure what the bolded part means

I don't either. I'd be interested to know what SS meant by that. What am I supposed to imagine? Washing machines? Frolicking through the fields on a sunny day? Livestock? I'm genuinely curious.

[manic expression]

Anybody could think about most anything while masturbating; I certainly have. Dudes thinking about women and women thinking about dudes, however, suggests a specific construction of gender and sexuality.No...it just suggests that hetero men find women attractive and hetero women find men attractive. That's neither news nor anything to be up in arms about. I ask this with all honesty: are hetero men to think nothing of females when they masturbate? Is it somehow "less objectifying" when women fantasize about men?

Objectification, let's remember, isn't the same as finding someone sexy/attractive/what have you. You just have to recognize that their attractiveness doesn't define them, and until you get to know them they're just an attractive stranger. Admiring someone's physical beauty is not at all negative if one remembers that that person could be all sorts of things, and until you find out it's best not to assume too much.

As a partial aside, I find women objectify themselves at least as often as men objectify women. I don't think that's been mentioned so far, but it's an unavoidable issue. If women demanded respect as the minimum, men would change their ways tomorrow, but they don't. What's more is that hetero women objectify men quite frequently...they compare dick sizes and sexual performance as much as men do with female body parts. That's where feminism turns into a dead-end, because it turns a blind eye to what's essentially done across gender lines and erroneously identifies it with men. I think TC's original post did a good job of being unbiased about the issue, but two pages later I see fingers pointed at males instead of the root causes of oppression.

[gorillafuck]

Given that in many cultures, contemporary and historical, women have been considered a quite literal item of property, I'm not sure that it's at all inappropriate. A master-slave relationship has repeatedly demonstrate itself to be the logical conclusion of patriarchy.Because when women are sexually objectified it's kind of like shipping Africans over on ships and enslaving the ones that don't die?


Are you sure folks don't, can't, or shouldn't fantasize about acts, situations, or sensations rather women or dudes? Are you sure they need to imagine at all?Do you mean you have to fantasize about people who aren't in the gender binary? Because people out of the gender binary almost always still have biological sex.

or do you mean like masturbating to a beautiful sunset or something?:laugh:

you think there's something wrong with masturbating with the thought of sexual acts with the sex you're sexually attracted to in mind. This shows how out of reality you are. Men who are not attracted to men can't masturbate to the thought of men because it wouldn't mentally stimulate them. Men who are only attracted to women can only masturbate to sexual thoughts about women because that is the way they are mentally stimulated during masturbation.

I can't believe I just had to explain that.:laugh:

[Quail]

Yes, along with gender itself. One of the specifics of contemporary sexuality would be the narrative of masturbation y'all are articulating. I'm hearing that masturbation requires gendered sexual fantasy centering on an imagined body with the appropriate parts. Are you sure folks don't, can't, or shouldn't fantasize about acts, situations, or sensations rather women or dudes? Are you sure they need to imagine at all?


I'm not physically attracted to the same gender. And I'm not sure what the bolded part means. I don't know about everyone else, but I imagine sexual acts when I masturbate.

I think that what SS is getting at is that you don't have to masturbate to an image of someone's body, or of people having sex, but the sensations that you feel that turn you on. For example, the memory of how good a certain sexual encounter felt, as opposed to the memory of that partner's body. Does that make sense?

It's a little depressing that this thread has been reduced to talking about masturbation. Objectification of women is a serious issue, but for some reason on this forum it always ends up getting reduced to talk of either, "I find my girlfriend attractive, am I sexist?" or, "Are you against male masturbation?"

[TC]

It's a little depressing that this thread has been reduced to talking about masturbation. Objectification of women is a serious issue, but for some reason on this forum it always ends up getting reduced to talk of either, "I find my girlfriend attractive, am I sexist?" or, "Are you against male masturbation?"

They are only interested in sexual objectification of women to the extent that complaining about it might interfere with what men want to do! What a perfect example of male privilege and entitlement.

[manic expression]

I think that what SS is getting at is that you don't have to masturbate to an image of someone's body, or of people having sex, but the sensations that you feel that turn you on. For example, the memory of how good a certain sexual encounter felt, as opposed to the memory of that partner's body. Does that make sense?
Certain women's bodies turn hetero men on...they're a sensation that hetero men feel that turn them on. It's not all of desire but a big, and pretty obvious, part of it. Hetero female fantasies are essentially the same...so why not call them out for objectifying men?


It's a little depressing that this thread has been reduced to talking about masturbation.
I do think the topic illustrates how out-of-touch feminists can be with the male perspective, though. It really is perplexing that people have to have explained to them why thinking of a woman's body in a sexual manner isn't something to be condemned.


They are only interested in sexual objectification of women to the extent that complaining about it might interfere with what men want to do! What a perfect example of male privilege and entitlement.
Sorry, but I don't think that's true. I think one can be concerned about objectification of women while dismissing certain conclusions. If hetero men are going to have fingers pointed at them for masturbating while thinking of women who turn them on, that has to be addressed because it's a plainly unhelpful line of reasoning.

[gorillafuck]

I think that what SS is getting at is that you don't have to masturbate to an image of someone's body, or of people having sex, but the sensations that you feel that turn you on. For example, the memory of how good a certain sexual encounter felt, as opposed to the memory of that partner's body. Does that make sense?No that doesn't make sense at all because it's not wrong to masturbate to peoples bodies. It's a natural part of sexual attraction. You are fully aware that not everyone has had sexual encounters when they start masturbating, right?


It's a little depressing that this thread has been reduced to talking about masturbation. Objectification of women is a serious issue, but for some reason on this forum it always ends up getting reduced to talk of either, "I find my girlfriend attractive, am I sexist?" or, "Are you against male masturbation?"Being opposed to masturbation is the logical conclusion of opposing consensual sex between people because they like eachothers bodies so I don't see how it's not a valid thing to say. Since according to TC and summerspeaker, having sex with a woman because you're attracted to their body and no reason beyond that is sexist.

It's not like I'm not going to argue with people who want to treat women like children, sorry if it offends people when I don't treat women with condescension and like children who are incapable of making their own choices and actions with regards to their own sexuality.

And TC: just out of curiosity, are you white? Because your insensitivity and offensive remarks on slavery make me think you likely are.

[StalinFanboy]

Wow, another RevLeft word to add to my vocabulary: "dudely". (Seriously, SS, the constant use of the word "dude" is getting old).

I wonder if cavemen/cavewomen masturbated, and if so, what they masturbated to. Someone should investigate into the socially-constructed act of rubbing one out through the ages of antiquity.
Just learned about a troop of chimps or monkeys (think its most likely chimps) that respond to stress and stuff like that with sex and mutural masturbation.

[StalinFanboy]

I would answer this but, you wrote to me randomly in a PM:

And my policy is to dissincentivize trollish flaming by not responding to people who insult me unless they apologize and behave decently towards me in the future.

Yes, despite popular belief, people on the Internet are real people who remember things - you can't behave inappropriately towards someone, then wait two months and think that you can start interacting with them again with no explanation.

ha wat.

I don't even remember sending that to you. But I stand by it because I don't do that stuff for no reason, and I probably thought you had been posting a bunch of stupid stuff. I understand that posters on here are real, which is pretty frustrating given the sort of things people say here, but I don't really have interest in dialoguing with someone who holds grudges against someone over the internet for so long.





They are only interested in sexual objectification of women to the extent that complaining about it might interfere with what men want to do! What a perfect example of male privilege and entitlement.

Yeah ok. I asked that question out of genuine curiosity to see where other people stand on that. I certainly wasn't asking permission and I'm certainly not going to stop finding my partner to be sexually attractive.


But apparently finding people to be sexy is male privilege. Ok.

[Quail]

Certain women's bodies turn hetero men on...they're a sensation that hetero men feel that turn them on. It's not all of desire but a big, and pretty obvious, part of it. Hetero female fantasies are essentially the same...so why not call them out for objectifying men?
What men find attractive in a woman is largely due to social conditioning. In the West, boobs are seen as a sexual organ, whereas in other cultures, they are seen primarily as baby feeding organs.
Also, you know what I meant by "sensations" - I was referring to touch, not the "sensation" of looking at a body.


I do think the topic illustrates how out-of-touch feminists can be with the male perspective, though. It really is perplexing that people have to have explained to them why thinking of a woman's body in a sexual manner isn't something to be condemned.

The point really is that the reason men masturbate to images of breasts (for example) is because of social conditioning. Men are socially conditioned to think of women's breasts as objects when they masturbate. Without that social conditioning, men might not masturbate over breasts at all. Objectifying someone when you masturbate might not be directly harming anyone, but it contributes to the overall attitude that women are objects.


No that doesn't make sense at all because it's not wrong to masturbate to peoples bodies. It's a natural part of sexual attraction. You are fully aware that not everyone has had sexual encounters when they start masturbating, right?
You're being dense. I gave that as an example. You could also focus on the feelings of masturbation itself.


Being opposed to masturbation is the logical conclusion of opposing consensual sex between people because they like each others bodies so I don't see how it's not a valid thing to say.
It isn't, though, because it's possible to masturbate without objectifying anyone.


It's not like I'm not going to argue with people who want to treat women like children, sorry if it offends people when I don't treat women with condescension and like children who are incapable of making their own choices and actions with regards to their own sexuality.
Nobody wants to treat women like children. However, it is important to challenge the social conditioning that leads to sexism. It doesn't matter whether you're objectifying women in your head when you masturbate or whether you're employing the woman with the bigger boobs just so you can gawp at them. It's all part of the same mentality, which needs to be challenged.

[gorillafuck]

You're being dense. I gave that as an example. You could also focus on the feelings of masturbation itself.Why can you not do both? Also, that's more difficult. It's near impossible to masturbate without thinking of any people at all...


It isn't, though, because it's possible to masturbate without objectifying anyone.Is it objectification to think of someones body (aka, is sexual attraction objectification)?


Nobody wants to treat women like children.There's a very condescending outlook in this thread involving people saying when it's alright and when it's not for women to have heterosexual sex (apparently depends on how much the other person appreciates their personality). Apparently women who enjoy sex for peoples bodies are contributing to oppression by having sex with people who don't really care about their personalities.

And no, masturbating to the thought of women and hiring women because they're attractive isn't similar. One is sexual attraction and one is employment discrimination on the basis of sexual attraction.

By the way, since it's wrong to have sex with women for their bodies, do you politically oppose heterosexual sex between people who don't know the personalities of eachother? That would be the consistent view.

[Summerspeaker]

They are only interested in sexual objectification of women to the extent that complaining about it might interfere with what men want to do! What a perfect example of male privilege and entitlement.

Indeed. As fascinating as the subject as the subject of masturbation is, I think I'm going to refrain from continuing that debate in detail here.

[Rafiq]

They are only interested in sexual objectification of women to the extent that complaining about it might interfere with what men want to do! What a perfect example of male privilege and entitlement.

Oh please. You should know better than to say something that isn't popular here.

We as Leftists will jump each other for anything we happen to disagree with. It has absolutely nothing to do with "Sexual Objectification" or even them being obsessed with masturbation.

[Tomhet]

Canadian female workers make less then Male workers here I forget the exact percentage, that is systematic sexism...

[Tomhet]

I think that what SS is getting at is that you don't have to masturbate to an image of someone's body, or of people having sex, but the sensations that you feel that turn you on. For example, the memory of how good a certain sexual encounter felt, as opposed to the memory of that partner's body. Does that make sense?


Who is to tell me what I can and cannot masterbate to?

[manic expression]

What men find attractive in a woman is largely due to social conditioning. In the West, boobs are seen as a sexual organ, whereas in other cultures, they are seen primarily as baby feeding organs.
Also, you know what I meant by "sensations" - I was referring to touch, not the "sensation" of looking at a body.
I don't argue that female chests have always been seen the same way...but regardless I don't see why men are expected to deny what they find attractive just because it isn't some god-given decree that boobs are sexy. OK, let's go with your premise 100%, it's social conditioning...so what? Men (and women) would find some other body part attractive and it'd basically follow the same premise.

And on sensations, I know what you meant, but visual attraction is a big part of it. Sexual activity encompasses many sensations: visual attraction, touch, smell, sound, taste and so on and so forth. All those factors (should) compliment one another...but visual attraction is central to that. In fact, I'd say it's the entryway to all the others.


The point really is that the reason men masturbate to images of breasts (for example) is because of social conditioning. Men are socially conditioned to think of women's breasts as objects when they masturbate. Without that social conditioning, men might not masturbate over breasts at all. Objectifying someone when you masturbate might not be directly harming anyone, but it contributes to the overall attitude that women are objects.
So they'd focus on hair or noses or lips or pale skin or legs. Cut it any way you want, sexual desire will always have a visual component to it for the vast majority of people. We shouldn't fight that. That's all I'm saying here.

[gorillafuck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_erotic_depictions

There has never been a point in history where sexuality did not have a physical attraction component to it, regardless of whether it's the same today as it used to be. I don't see how arguing that breast fetishism (it is a fetish) is a social construct is an argument against enjoying what breasts look like. Is attraction suddenly wrong because it's a social construct?

I suppose we'd better organize against people with foot fetishes.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Sex is bad, dude, it distracts you from selling newspapers and punching cops.

[Luís Henrique]

It's a little depressing that this thread has been reduced to talking about masturbation. Objectification of women is a serious issue, but for some reason on this forum it always ends up getting reduced to talk of either, "I find my girlfriend attractive, am I sexist?" or, "Are you against male masturbation?"

Problem is sexism - as racism, etc. - is seen by most here as a personal attribute. Thence the underlining question to the reduction you talk about is, Am I sexist?

But it is a false question. We live in a society that is structurally based in sexism, so it will eventually manifestate through our own acts and words. The question is, are we critical of sexism, including when it manifests itself through our own acts and words? In other words, heterosexual men and homosexual women will find their girlfriends attractive, whether we like it or not; but the question is, "why am I attracted to this particular woman, and would it have to do with some stereotypical traits in her looks or demeanour?"

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I suppose we'd better organize against people with foot fetishes.

Over my cold, dead, feet.

Prepare for a long, protracted fight.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Because when women are sexually objectified it's kind of like shipping Africans over on ships and enslaving the ones that don't die?
Because patriarchy is like white supremacism. Sexual objectification is an expression of patriarchy, just as slavery is an expression of white supremacy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_erotic_depictions

There has never been a point in history where sexuality did not have a physical attraction component to it, regardless of whether it's the same today as it used to be. I don't see how arguing that breast fetishism (it is a fetish) is a social construct is an argument against enjoying what breasts look like. Is attraction suddenly wrong because it's a social construct?

I suppose we'd better organize against people with foot fetishes.
I don't really know who or what you're arguing against here. :confused:

[Os Cangaceiros]

just as slavery is an expression of white supremacy.

I actually think that it's the other way around: the ideology of white supremacy was created to suit the economic institution of slavery.

But that's another topic.

[Tim Finnegan]

I actually think that it's the other way around: the ideology of white supremacy was created to suit the economic institution of slavery.
Fair point. It's a base/superstructure set-up, I suppose, which means the two influence and sustain each other: just as an ideology of white supremacism generates a racialised distribution of economic power (of which slavery is the most blatant example), this distribution generates an ideology which serves to legitimise it.

Of course, much the same thing can be said of patriarchy and patriarchy ideology (of which the normalised objectification of women is a part), so the analogy more or less holds.

[gorillafuck]

Because patriarchy is like white supremacism. Sexual objectification is an expression of patriarchy, just as slavery is an expression of white supremacy.oh holy shit you actually think that the institution of slavery is comparable to what's being discussed.


I don't really know who or what you're arguing against here. :confused:Read what Quail said to manic expression.

[Tim Finnegan]

oh holy shit you actually think that the institution of slavery and sexual objectification are comparable.
Well, yeah, I do. That hardly means I think that they're equivalent, though, which is the only really I could see you being reasonably unsettled by anything I've said.


Read what Quail said to manic expression.I did, and it seems to me that you're inferring more from Quail's posts than as evident. Yes, I think s/he over-states the significance of certain points (in particular, I think s/he makes the error, one which is really a bit too common in feminist/queer thought, of assuming that an individual's innate sexual orientation is somehow more "pure" than its eventual form) but I didn't understand that as suggesting that physical attraction stemming from socially constructed norms is actually wrong.

[Quail]

I'm not feeling well and don't feel like writing a long reply, but I'm just going to say a couple of things. I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself very badly, or people are just being willfully dense.

- When I was talking about attraction to breasts I was really using that as an example and referring to the ideal presented by magazines, etc, which objectify women. If we weren't living in a patriarchal society, women portrayed as objects in this way would not be seen as desirable or acceptable to masturbate over.

- I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can and can't think about when they wank, but urging you to consider the way that patriarchal social conditioning has affected you. Objectifying women when you masturbate may be a way in which patriarchal values instilled in you by society manifest themselves.

- I also don't believe that any physical attraction is automatically objectification. Of course people find each other physically attractive for a variety of reasons. However, I think you need to examine your attitudes towards physical attraction. Luis Henrique expressed it quite well above:

The question is, are we critical of sexism, including when it manifests itself through our own acts and words? In other words, heterosexual men and homosexual women will find their girlfriends attractive, whether we like it or not; but the question is, "why am I attracted to this particular woman, and would it have to do with some stereotypical traits in her looks or demeanour?"

[gorillafuck]

I'm not feeling well and don't feel like writing a long reply, but I'm just going to say a couple of things. I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself very badly, or people are just being willfully dense.

- When I was talking about attraction to breasts I was really using that as an example and referring to the ideal presented by magazines, etc, which objectify women. If we weren't living in a patriarchal society, women portrayed as objects in this way would not be seen as desirable or acceptable to masturbate over.You're making the claim that if society wasn't patriarchal, then people wouldn't be in sexy pictures?

That's ridiculous. People are naturally sexual and throughout history that has manifested itself in images.


- I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can and can't think about when they wank, but urging you to consider the way that patriarchal social conditioning has affected you. Objectifying women when you masturbate may be a way in which patriarchal values instilled in you by society manifest themselves.Finding certain things about people to be physically attractive goes in any direction. Men-men, women-men, men-women, women-women. Whether it's a social construct is irrelevant.

Also, what is objectifying in thought? Is it just thinking of physical bodies? Because really that's not a sign of patriarchy in the slightest. That's how human sexuality is and would still be in a non-patriarchal society, because there will never be a society where everyone finds everyone attractive or people don't act on their physical attractions. Physical attraction is a component of sexuality, and that means that when people get off or go have sex or whatever they will utilize that component.

The lack of understanding of the psychology of sexuality in this thread is astounding.

if the argument were to be made that standards are set too highly for women and that that is oppressive, then I'd be agreeing with you all, but this thread is full of ignorant and nonsensical arguments about how it's wrong to visualize women when jerking off or how it's bad to want to have sex with people you don't know the personality of.

[Luís Henrique]

You're making the claim that if society wasn't patriarchal, then people wouldn't be in sexy pictures?

That's ridiculous. People are naturally sexual and throughout history that has manifested itself in images.

But society has been patriarchal through history as a whole, so how would we know?


Finding certain things about people to be physically attractive goes in any direction. Men-men, women-men, men-women, women-women. Whether it's a social construct is irrelevant.Why would it be irrelevant? It is a social construct, therefore it is not "natural". Of course there is sexual attraction, but it cannot manifest itself outside of the socially constructed forms in which is understood in any given society. Since these forms are socially constructed, it follows that different societies will manifest sexual attraction in different ways.


Also, what is objectifying in thought? Is it just thinking of physical bodies? Because really that's not a sign of patriarchy in the slightest. That's how human sexuality is and would still be in a non-patriarchal society, because there will never be a society where everyone finds everyone attractive or people don't act on their physical attractions. Physical attraction is a component of sexuality, and that means that when people get off or go have sex or whatever they will utilize that component.I think this has more do to with the fetishism of certain parts of human bodies, not with the idea of physical attraction in general. The fact, for instance, that feet fetishism is seen as weird, unlike breast fetishism, which is mistaken for natural (it isn't, of course, outside of the United States, where breasts - and especially big breasts - are much more secondary to physical attraction).


The lack of understanding of the psychology of sexuality in this thread is astounding.

if the argument were to be made that standards are set too highly for women and that that is oppressive, then I'd be agreeing with you all, but this thread is full of ignorant and nonsensical arguments about how it's wrong to visualize women when jerking off or how it's bad to want to have sex with people you don't know the personality of.Well, of course you do have overreactions. Or this would not be the "left", isn't it?

Moralism of the worst kind has always plagued the left, let's face it. And of course, theoretical possibilities of condemning other people's expressions of sexuality under the cover of some "anti-sexist" or "progressive" "reasoning" must be welcome to the little Stalins among us.

Haven't we seen a pretensely very ultra-radical anarchist organisation (or non-organisation, who cares) engaging in bigoted actions against prostitutes and claiming it as part of a liberatory struggle on behalf of women?

Luís Henrique

[Quail]

You're making the claim that if society wasn't patriarchal, then people wouldn't be in sexy pictures?

That's ridiculous. People are naturally sexual and throughout history that has manifested itself in images.
I'm pointing out that the social conditioning of a patriarchal society can affect the way men think about women. Why that is even controversial is beyond me.


Finding certain things about people to be physically attractive goes in any direction. Men-men, women-men, men-women, women-women. Whether it's a social construct is irrelevant.

Not really, no. If someone's views were influenced by the racist society in which they grew up, you wouldn't want to defend that, would you?


Also, what is objectifying in thought? Is it just thinking of physical bodies? Because really that's not a sign of patriarchy in the slightest. That's how human sexuality is and would still be in a non-patriarchal society, because there will never be a society where everyone finds everyone attractive or people don't act on their physical attractions. Physical attraction is a component of sexuality, and that means that when people get off or go have sex or whatever they will utilize that component.

I don't argue that finding people physically attractive is wrong. However, as I said above, I urge men to look at the way that they think of women as physically attractive. Are you looking at women through sexism-tinted glasses? If we're to get rid of discrimination, we need to look at the attitudes and thoughts within ourselves critically.


if the argument were to be made that standards are set too highly for women and that that is oppressive, then I'd be agreeing with you all, but this thread is full of ignorant and nonsensical arguments about how it's wrong to visualize women when jerking off or how it's bad to want to have sex with people you don't know the personality of.
All I'm arguing for is that people look at their attitudes to women critically. If you think of yourself as a feminist then you need to be aware of your own attitudes and you need to be vigilant. As a woman, I think it's my place to tell you when I think that you're not being vigilant enough, as opposed to your place to be telling me that I'm being oversensitive.

[gorillafuck]

I'm pointing out that the social conditioning of a patriarchal society can affect the way men think about women. Why that is even controversial is beyond me.I didn't know that was what was being discussed. Isn't this discussion about whether it's sexist to find women attractive and getting off or having sex with that in mind?:confused:

That's what it was before...


Not really, no. If someone's views were influenced by the racist society in which they grew up, you wouldn't want to defend that, would you?No but sexual attraction isn't like racism. If one society promotes foot or breast fetishism and people get fetishes because of that, that's not the same as promoting ideas about racial hierarchy.


I don't argue that finding people physically attractive is wrong. However, as I said above, I urge men to look at the way that they think of women as physically attractive. Are you looking at women through sexism-tinted glasses? If we're to get rid of discrimination, we need to look at the attitudes and thoughts within ourselves critically.I don't think so since I don't lose respect for ugly women, but there are certain women I find particularly attractive and I think about attractive women. Is that considered sexist? Because that's what's been being debated.


All I'm arguing for is that people look at their attitudes to women critically. If you think of yourself as a feminist then you need to be aware of your own attitudes and you need to be vigilant. As a woman, I think it's my place to tell you when I think that you're not being vigilant enough, as opposed to your place to be telling me that I'm being oversensitive.If you think it's sexist to want to have sex with attractive women or to think of attractive women then I don't think that I should listen to one woman saying that's wrong just because she's a woman, seeing as most women disagree with that. I can't tell if that's what you're saying, now though.

[gorillafuck]

also I'm annoyed how I'm under more fire for finding attractive women to be attractive and enjoying the way attractive women look, than people who were saying that this sort of behavior is like shipping over Africans on ships to become slaves.

[synthesis]

I think it's fair to say that these types of arguments are mostly rooted in failures of communication.

[Tim Finnegan]

also I'm annoyed how I'm under more fire for finding attractive women to be attractive and enjoying the way attractive women look, than people who were saying that this sort of behavior is like shipping over Africans on ships to become slaves.
Who said that, exactly? I mean, I recall saying something about slavery, but I don't think it was anything quite like that. :confused:

[coda]

I've just read through this thread. I get it now why a few people are more than repulsed by this thread. Some of thse questions are hilarious though! Some of you guys can't really be that ignorant??!!!?? or are just trying to get a response?? Considering that studies show that men think about sex, that completely primitive biological grunt-burp-scratch-that-ball-itch! impulse that all animals especially males, have in common, an average of every 52 seconds! (Gee, room for any other thoughts?) so, no, not surprised much nor worried about the stability of patriarchy. if the studies are true, than men are getting stupider and stupider by the second, (literally)! And That's something most women can get on board with!

[Tim Finnegan]

Thank you, we were missing the "stereotypical man-hating feminist" voice in this debate. :rolleyes:

[coda]

That's me, baby! two can play this game! I don't crumple under the weight of male oppression. I actually believe different...

Funny, how offended by the "Stereotypical man-hating feminist"

Like it much?

I don't actually "Hate" men --not all.. just have low opinion and not much respect for the sexist kind..

the other guys.. I like and respect a lot,

[Le Libérer]

Seeing this thread has digressed to shit....
Thread closed.