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. — Brett

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.

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. — 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.

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’?
— 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. — Brett

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.

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? — Brett

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?

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? — 3017amen

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.

I ask once again, how do we escape our world of material objects and associated judgments? — 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.

So, a gaze that gives instead of taking. And it’s not lost on me that it’s taking place in a creative act. — Brett

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.

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. — Brett

Thank you.

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? — 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.

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. — Pinprick

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.

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. — 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. — 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.

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? — 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.

Good sex is animalistic, and I think objectification during sex is entirely natural and fine. After sex, if you're going to carry on a relation with that person, you're probably going to want to start treating them as a reasonable person again. Or maybe not. I don't know, it's up to that relationship, but I remember Kant viewed humanity or dignity as tied to our capacity for reason and if you have a partner who you view as incapable or bad at reason it's gonna be hard for the relationship if not totally impossible. You'd basically have to constantly manage them. — BitconnectCarlos

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.

There is an argument, to which I personally do not subscribe, that all sexual relations are objectifications. That is, the best that can be hoped for is that partners consensually and mutually use each other as objects for their own gratification, and willingly become objects for the other's gratification. It's a way of looking at things, but I would say that the mutuality contradicts the objectification. — unenlightened

I’m with you here.

It seems that to dress to emphasize one's sexuality doesn't necessarily imply that a woman is saying yes to sexual objectification per se. Indeed a case can be made that a woman in a low neckline top and a miniskirt is presenting herself as sexually desirable for these items of clothing are designed to tantalize men by half-exposing those parts of a woman's body that have arousal value for men. Does this in itself bespeak a desire by women to give men the impression that they're little more than living sex-toys? I'm afraid not. As one poster indicated to me sexual objectification (of women) means to value women only for their body and what it can do for men's sexual appetites. Women, when dressed provocatively, could be making the statement that she has the goods men crave but that these goods are only the side dish in a full course meal that she as a person is all about. Not necessary that women's dresses imply that they endorse men trying to reduce them to sex objects. That said, I have this sneaking suspicion that some women do in fact see themselves as all sex appeal and nothing else and, unfortunately, they dress in identical fashion to those women who just want to strut their stuff as perks of a relationship with them. — TheMadFool

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.

That’s not what I was saying. She did not become what he was looking at. She wondered exactly who she was. — Brett

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.

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.
— 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. — Brett

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.

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. — Brett

I agree with this, and said as much.

I don’t think its always possible to tell the difference. — Brett

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.

Why would a woman let a man define who she is? And through only a look? — Brett

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.

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?”. — Brett

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.

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. — Brett

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.

A man's sexual/intellectual/nutritional/etc. attention? — TheMadFool

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.

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.

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. — 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.

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. — Brett

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.

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. — 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?

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. — TheMadFool

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.

Male revues give women a safe place to openly appreciate an impressive masculine physique and participate in fantasies without the guy expecting anything else from them. The men have their egos massaged every night, and learn the benefits of giving a woman space to make decisions for herself.

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. — Pinprick

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.

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. — 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.

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. — Pinprick

I’m not talking about you groping your wife, but about customers groping the employees.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

An interesting tangential discussion.

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. — 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.

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. — schopenhauer1

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.

The way I see it, part of the issue is that people are multifaceted, but very often we only see one side of them. In a way, I objectify my doctor, because I only see him in this narrow, shallow category. So to me his only value is his ability to address my health concerns. With a stripper it’s the same thing. Her only value is her ability sexually arouse me. Now, this is completely dependent on my having no other interactions with them. If I knew either person personally, my perspective would change. I would be aware of their personality, interests, etc. so that they would not appear shallow. Also, if I go to a strip club, and that club does not expressly state that I cannot grope, leer, etc., then wouldn’t that lead me to believe that those actions are acceptable? And as a stripper, wouldn’t that mean the same thing? That men are allowed to perform those behaviors? — Pinprick

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.

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? — Hanover

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.

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. — Congau

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.

If he asked her and received the reply “because high heeled shoes are comfortable”, he may have good reasons to disregard that answer altogether. — 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...

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. — 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.

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. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:up:

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

To acquire economic and/or social value.

Correct and that value is associated with her physical beauty that she chooses to put on display. So she has objectified herself, no? — 3017amen

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.

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... — 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.

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. — 3017amen

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.

If she chose to objectify herself (and was fully aware of her agency), how could she be denying herself agency? — 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.

Then please explain love-as-attachment cognition. Baby sees mom, mom leaves baby, baby cries? Is the infant objectifying the mother? — 3017amen

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.

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?) — 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 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. — StreetlightX

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.

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. — StreetlightX

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 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. — Gnomon

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.

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. — 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.

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! — 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.

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. — 3017amen

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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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? — 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.

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... . — 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.

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. — Congau

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 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. — 3017amen

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.

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 — 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.

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)? — 3017amen

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.

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...
— Possibility

Correct. And that's my point. You make judgements based on objectification. — 3017amen

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.