what is sexual objectification?

[rioters bloc]

where does general sexuality and sexual attraction end, and objectification begin?

since our bodies are ours, is it okay to try and change our appearance/how we dress/emphasise certain parts of our body to play to mass market ideals? is it authoritarian to tell people that they shouldn't?

why is it 'wrong' to value people purely for their bodies but not purely for their minds (if you think it is)?

okay.... GO!

[Jazzratt]

Objectifcation begins when the only (rather than primary or main) goal of one party (generally male) is to have sex/sexual contact with the other party (generally female.) or when somone is unwillingly made the sexual 'fantasy' of a group of anonymous people. At least that's my understanding of it.

As for the doing what you want with your body thing, sure why the hell not? Personally I ddon't think anything will be achieved if everyone is forced to wear modest clothing. Just look at authoratarian Islamic nations where rape is prevelent despite the lawes regarding how women dress.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by rioters bloc@Jun 14 2006, 01:37 AM
where does general sexuality and sexual attraction end, and objectification begin?

Sexuality is a massively complex thing and includes a wide range of feelings, emotions, understandings, desires and needs. Objectification of a human being is void of all those things and is solely about sex.

since our bodies are ours, is it okay to try and change our appearance/how we dress/emphasise certain parts of our body to play to mass market ideals? is it authoritarian to tell people that they shouldn't?

The problem is not that women objectify themselves, it's that men objectify them. There is no problem with dressing up and putting on make up to make yourself look good, the problem comes in a male dominated society when that dressing up etc is a tool to objectify women.

why is it 'wrong' to value people purely for their bodies but not purely for their minds (if you think it is)?

It's not "wrong" but it's certainly myopic and contributes to a reactionary world view.

[TC]

Originally posted by rioters bloc@Jun 14 2006, 12:37 AM
where does general sexuality and sexual attraction end, and objectification begin?

The difficulty in answering this question is precisely because the idea of sexual objectification is a fundamentally flawed and confused concept. There is no dividing line between sexual attraction and so called sexual objectification precisely because the notion of sexual objectification corresponds to no real phenomenon apart from sexual attraction.

Rather, the idea of sexual objectification is instead a reaction by anti-sex psudo-feminists to sexual attraction that they dont personally approve of or relate to, largely types that simply embarrass them. Like all social conservatives, they take their own personal, subjective tastes and preferences and conceptualize them in such a way to grant their opinions universal moral authority.


People who use these types of, utterly void characterizations, might want to think about their own sexuality as somehow more complex, deep, meaningful, valuing people for different things, or other fluffy self serving justifications. These however, all require interpreting their own sexual experiances on a different basis than the ones they accuse of being sexually objectifying, they require evaluating them on different levels of complexity and making different assumptions, and therefore this does nothing to clarify or resolve the distinction...its simply a psudo-intellectual attempt to justify what amounts to nothing more than a prejudice based on differences in sexual preference and expression.

since our bodies are ours, is it okay to try and change our appearance/how we dress/emphasise certain parts of our body to play to mass market ideals? is it authoritarian to tell people that they shouldn\\\'t?

Absolutely. Screw anyone who thinks they can dictate morality. People who want to tell girls what they can and cant wear might call themselves feminists but that doesnt change the fact that they are in actuality, emotionally acting out a form of backlash to womens sexual liberation.

why is it \\\'wrong\\\&#39 ; to value people purely for their bodies but not purely for their minds (if you think it is)?

Its not wrong and everyone does it some of the time. People who suggest otherwise, don\\\'t really think its wrong, practically speaking, because they do it too, rather they see it as a way to attack people whose sexuality they don\\\'t relate to or approve of (largely straight men\\\'s) doing the same things, and the people who take advantage of the fact that they do (largely straight women).

(Naturally of course, women sometimes value men purely for their bodies, and men take advantage of this as well, and lesbians and gay men do the same thing with each other, but for whatever reason, the people who use terms like sexual objectification as a means to police morality are only really concerned with the first type of interaction.)

[Body Count]

Originally posted by rioters bloc@Jun 14 2006, 12:37 AM
why is it 'wrong' to value people purely for their bodies but not purely for their minds (if you think it is)?

Pleasures and talents of the mind are generally considered higher then pleasures and talents of the body....asking this question is somewhat like asking why we respect scientist more then we respect athletes.

Aside from that, you can "get to know" a person, or, get to know a persons "mind" (Personality and behaviors), a body just sort of "is".

[LSD]

why is it 'wrong' to value people purely for their bodies but not purely for their minds

It isn't.

Sex, as an act, is an ultimately physical one. That is, it occurs between two bodies, not two "minds". As such it is entirely natural that one's body, and others perceptions of it, would play the driving role in driving sexual attraction and behaviour.

After all, all of human sexuality is, to a degree, the objectification of attractive individuals; that's just basic psychology: we are attacted to that which we find attactive, and there is absolutely nothing 'wrong" or "imoral" about that.

The only place where "objectification" becomes dangerous is when it goes beyond simple attraction and bleeds into one's perception of of people in general.

And so while women and men are not only "sex objects", there's absolutely no reason why, in addition to being a full human being, they can't be that for someone as well.

Indeed, that's probably the best definition of a healthy sexual relationship: mutual objectification.

where does general sexuality and sexual attraction end, and objectification begin?

You know, people love to throw that phrase around -- "objectification of women" -- but I've yet to see an explanation of what it actually practically mean.

Does wanting to fuck a woman "objectify her"? By the same token, does her wanting to fuck you, "objectify" you?

Doesn't all sex that isn't "emotional" or "loving" constitute, to some degree, "obejctification" by both parties involved? It doesn't mean that either person "disrespects" the other person, but when two people engage in anonymous physical sex, they are "using" that other person for their own sexual gratification.

And so what!

When two people play football, aren't they, in a manner of speaking, "using" each other for physical enjoyment? If they're not actually friends and just meet to kick the ball around, isn't "objectification" occuring? Since, in terms of this interaction, "mind" and "spirit" don't matter, just pure physical ball-kicking ability, doesn't the doctrine of "anti-objetification" condemn this encounter?

In short, what is it that makes sex so damn special? What is it that makes sexual physicality "sacrosanct", while, say, sporting physicality is not.

It strikes me as remarkably puritanical to demand that ones sexual activities be of a "loftier" nature than any other pleasurable pursuit. It seems to rely on the discredited conservative notion that a solely physical sexuality is somehow "imoral".

You see, I think the real problem here is this paternalistic assumption that women are "by nature" non-sexual beings who, if they're having sex, must be "doing it for the man".

And that is far more corrosive to society than any normal and healthy "objectification" of a person's body.