Your first premise is incohrent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sorry for the delay. I was with my lady friend and we were enjoying objectifying ourselves this weekend, and appreciating our mutual attraction (aesthetic appreciation) to, and for, our material agency/agencies :blush:

I provided a definition list so that you could make coherent or sound propositions out of your ( & ) arguments.

Here's a syllogism that you can parse, if you care to (Some A are B. All A are C. Therefore, some C are B):

Some women/men are strippers.
All women/men are objects.
Therefore, some objects are strippers.

Now, I took the liberty to research common definitions relating to these concepts; try to use a logico- deductive argument with the following definitions in order to make your case:


Objectify:

1. to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.

2. express (something abstract) in a concrete form.

3. to give expression to (something, such as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.

4. : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality

Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Eros: love is the physical, sensual intimacy between man, woman, husband/wife, human's... . It expresses sexual, romantic attraction. Eros is also the name of the mythological Greek god of love, sexual desire, physical attraction, and physical love. This love passion was described through an elaborate metaphoric and mythological schema involving "love's arrows" or "love darts", the source of which was often the personified figure of Eros (or his Latin counterpart, Cupid), or another deity (such as Rumor. At times the source of the arrows was said to be the image of the beautiful love object itself.

Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/) : is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). Aesthetics covers both natural and artificial sources of aesthetic experience and judgment. It considers what happens in our minds when we engage with aesthetic objects… .


Physical v. Meta-physical: The differences between having to do with the body and the material world, and the study of the ultimate nature of existence and the universe.

She didn’t choose to objectify herself, and she doesn’t deny herself agency. She chose to have value, which is the only way to even begin to be aware of your own agency.
— Possibility

Then what was her purpose and intention?
— 3017amen

Possibility-To acquire economic and/or social value.

Let's test your argument using your words and logic:

If I objectify myself, it will add economic/social value
To add economic/social value, I can be a stripper
Therefore, if I objectify myself, I can be a stripper

Is that a valid argument? If not, please revise to make those propositions sound. Otherwise, it appears that stripping (objectification) was a means to obtain economic/social value.

Ha! Embrace your fears!! (Where's Poetic Universe when you need him... .) Or better yet, maybe some Freudian-speak would pass muster here... !

No one mentioned this so I'll posit: In broad brush terms, Ethics relates to objective standards for human happiness and quality of life issues/values ( i.e., Pragmatism). Morals tend to stay in the right-wrong, good-evil, volitional/ behavioral phenomena category. Many folks use them interchangeably because there is some overlap.

Nice! Another consideration in the equation could look something like this. If the answer to the question is yes, then one could explore the concepts of, say; (metaphysical) will, intention, motivations, needs, sentience itself, subjective truth's, etc..

If the answer to the question is no, then alternatively one could explore the concepts of pure reason/a priori, abstracts, timelessness, eternal truth's, objective truth's, and so on.

The concept of human value then, could comprise all of that and more (i.e., biological value/needs). Otherwise, we are talking basic ethics kinds of stuff, which in turn, draws from sentient existence. And that leads to questions about consciousness/self-aware Beings who wonder about such existence.

Just some more food for thought.

However I think we could reflect on our assumptions, deconstruct our belief systems and see them for what they are, examine all of those benhaviours of ours which differ from that of a baby. — Benj96

Excellent, good job Benj96!

I always said, in many respects, men and women are just children in adult bodies. The translation is what most call, being fun loving. We can't take ourselves too seriously.We should celebrate this way of Being.

I have found (like many psychologists) that the rubrics (rubricize) of society can be good, but also can be harmful. Taking one step back to move two steps forward is the hope. As you suggest, not that ignorance is bliss, but if we can slay our Gilligan's (pop psychology term) in a way that uncovers a healthy self-awareness, the journey is worth ride. Whether it's our professional or personal lives, we all just want to loved, in some way shape or form. Some argue it's all about feelings. (That notion squares with the primitive limbic system at the base of the brain.)

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

Agreed Schop1. That's called material agency. I believe one should rejoice in their material agency, or physical beauty. Sure there is going to be, in this case, pathology associated with anything that involves human's (as well as the pluses and minuses of being a man/woman-discriminatory behavior). We all have our cross to bear. I think you get it.

To harp on the existential angst of the human condition is what Possibility/Widow and others keep focusing on. I just don't see how one can escape objectifying the object (the double standard is alive and well). When we objectify our bodies by clinging to virtuous ideals (Eros, beauty contests, romantic love, the new born baby/object, sculpture, art, etc.), we applaud it. When we objectify the same by choosing pathology, we denounce it (as it should be).

I think, once again, this tendency to dichotomize is rearing its head. Sure, I'm dichotomizing myself ( I'd like to call it parsing) self-awareness over the inescapable world of aesthetic's, but drawing the distinctions and associated virtues/vices is the point.

We indeed have physical agency, and metaphysical agency. No Brainer. Each has its role to play.

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. — Possibility

What boat did you just get off of? That's not reality. This is basic psychology 101. Learn coping skills. Life is like that boat. You can't control the weather, but you bet your ass you better prepare for the worst.

If you want to live on an idealistic island, or if you know of one, please sign me up! Again, don't let men manipulate your thinking. Despite the odds, empower yourself. Make the choices that are more likely to achieve health and well being.

Look we all get discriminated against at some point in time. Whether it's age, looks, education, ethnicity, the human condition can suck. I have my own issues to deal with as a man. But you seem to be saying you have no choice in the matter. It takes two to tango.

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. — Possibility

That makes no sense. You seem to want your cake and eat it too. Meaning, you seem to be saying if I'm a race car driver, and I get hurt in an accident, that it's the fan's fault who were cheering me on. Along with intrinsic value, you are now missing the point about taking personal responsibility.

Look, I get the whole systemic thing and the abuses, but there is an existential thing called volitional existence. And that rightfully assumes taking responsibility for your own choices. So when you put your self in those positions of blatant objectification, well then, you get objectified.

Why can't you accept the fact the we live in a material (and immaterial) world? Let both of them work for you. Take responsibility and empower yourself. Look good, feel good, and be smart and intelligent. (There's nothing more attractive than a beautiful sexy woman who is smart and intelligent who knows who she is, what she wants, and is fun loving. Don't let men manipulate you.)

I think you have to get at the phenomenal experience itself. — schopenhauer1

Indeed Schop1 ! And the phenomenal experience is the physical attractiveness (or unattractiveness) of the object itself.

Sorry to interrupt, but common sense is seemingly being overlooked here...

To acquire economic and/or social value. — Possibility

And that value was what, to objectify her/himself? Logically, there's no other conclusion. Care to do a logical deductive syllogism?

(The objectification was a means to an end.)

This doesn't really describe my sexual interactions. I meet someone, go on a few dates, have sex, then maybe it moves forward a little, the infatuation wears off, and then things end. Did I really care about that person? Not terribly, but how could I after a few weeks? Were they just a warm sexual object? No, that wouldn't do them justice either. They were an object of attraction, but also a sincere effort at a relationship was being made. I think we both wanted something lasting, but, alas, not everyone is The One. There was no pretending. It was just two adults trying to form a lasting connection, neither of whom believing that love is required before sex.

Relationships have varying depth, and some come and go quickly, but I don't equate my best efforts at relationships with with what you describe, which sounds like lonely alley cats bumping into each other just to feel the warmth of another body, with no thoughts of ever seeing one another again. — Hanover

Thank you Hanover. That is a sort of in-the-trenches, existential view of reality. But a harsh reality nonetheless. And one salient point I was making, so thank you for that contribution.

Ironically enough, that describes many of mine. And it certainly supports the idea in some fashion, that both men and women objectify themselves. Rightly or wrongly.

The door is always open because men take a woman's mere existence to be a sexual object. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Gosh where is all this angst coming from... Honey not all men think the way you think they think. Both men and women are sexual beings. Is there extremism in everything, you betcha. Do some men marry women just for a steady piece of ass, I couldn't tell you but if that's what you're implying I'm not sure what I can say to change your mind.

Unfortunately you're being too idealistic. There is no political or social contract that precludes freedom of speech, at least here in America. We are free to speak, and be who we want to be. And we take all the responsibility that goes along with it ( good, bad or ugly).

I was only kidding my brother! Your point about discouraging voyeurism is well taken. Love you man thanks for the thread... !

The stripper is not responsible for the monstrous reactions of objectfiction from anyone watching. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Correct. She's only responsible on how she reacts to it. But as TMF just alluded to, putting yourself in that position opens up the door for all sorts of things.

Another simple analogy is the star football player. If he's booed, spit at, or otherwise an object of hate and personal attacks, should he quit, or rationalize that it's all part of the job. And if it's all part of the job, isn't that what he signed up for?

Of course it is...

You don't do that shit becuase it's harmful to others. You aren't respecting their sexual boundries. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But if you're in a public restroom and the woman in the next stall to you says that your shit stinks should you take offense to it?

Are they disrespecting your personal space? If so, I would suggest holding your shit until you get home. That way it stays private.

Point is, the moment you sign on to be the stripper, you have to put your big girl pants on and take personal responsibility...

And what political or social contract precludes that response from other's (men) that bothers you?

not sure why you are speaking of contracts here. Contracts aren't invoved in relations of objectification or not. Indeed, they are utterly irrelevant to sexual behaviour or relations of any kind. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The law of contracts simply states: a promise for a promise. As a stripper or male dancer the individual signs up to objectify themselves. If in this case it happens to involve sexuality, then that's what you signed up for...get it? Am I missing something?

Strippers are not objectifying themselves.Th — TheWillowOfDarkness

What if there were no strippers at all, who then is the responsible party to sign the social contract?

And just so you know I'm equal opportunity. If I choose to be a male dancer I've chosen to objectify myself. And not only will I be judged as such, I run the risk of comments that relate to sexuality.

Her purpose and intention don't matter. — TheWillowOfDarkness

They absolutely do. In any relationship it takes two to tango.

Otherwise all you seem to be doing is projecting your frustration with other women who choose to objectify themselves rightly or wrongly. And in this case you clearly have strong feelings that it's wrong.

It's a no-brainer, as a woman, to avoid being a stripper unless your intention is to objectify yourself.

No, it is not. Not in the sense that women are appearing looking beautiful. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If it's not an objectification then why is the judging criteria partially consisting of swimsuits and evening gowns? In other words, brains in a vat would look more beautiful LOL.

, in the sense that beauty pagents are cultural/political organisation which assert a women has a specific social value upon her looks. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And we have a winner, ding ding ding!! And that value is more or less an aesthetic objective value. Agreed!

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?

The woman’s choice is to have value as an object, or to not have value at all. — Possibility

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

Appearing as an object does not equal objectification. Everything appears as an object. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Is a beauty pageant objectification? If so, is looking beautiful important to you?

Wanting to be looked at or appear attractive does not equal being sexually objectified. The objectification is a separate action, taken by other, in response to the presence of a person. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's where you're misguided. Remove the word sex for a moment. If your desire is to appear attractive either to yourself or someone else, then you have exercised your right to objectify the object. And that object is you yourself.

It's simple subject-object. Look in the mirror, because that's first person subject-object. (This is your responsibility.)

Some people are comforted by a sense of control or knowledge or purpose or identity, the list goes on... which is why death terrifies them because it is a loss of any semblance of control over your existence/awareness, — Benj96

I was only going to add to that, the fear of the unknown. Of course the irony is, here, the nature of our own existence is largely unknown.

To the OP, if life as we know it ( self-aware conscious existence) remains mysterious or unexplained, it seems as though it would follow that the similar phenomenon of death would be no less mysterious.

Nevertheless, to explore the nature of fear itself, would be worth the sojourn...

Hey TMF, try to be a little more discreet with your creepy peeping-tom activities :rofl: :joke:

:up:

don't think we're spectators of the world or that there is some "us" as subjects observing other people or things as objects. The questions I asked relate to some problems I think arise from my confusion regarding your use of the words "objects" and "objectification" (or possibly your misuse of them) and not to some urge to explore other matters. — Ciceronianus the White

That's precisely why you should start another thread, because I would make the case that you're wrong :brow:

But if you're scared, I understand.

LOL, I don't know about hanging himself but he should definitely have his man-card revoked, his gold jacket taken away, and be put on probation. :gasp:

EDIT: I take that back. I think the guy should be hung from his toes naked, and the leash that he had on his girlfriend she should take it and whip his pee pee into submission. Now there's real sexual objectification!!

Yeah good point. I was going to mention that relative to Middle East culture where women's clothing is designed to minimize or discourage sexual objectification. I think, in part, this speaks to the emotional agency baggage that Possibility is trying to argue, only its women's baggage in her case. The downside is that it seems to encourage violence and insecurity among men (aka: male emotional baggage). While in principle, it certainly has its virtues (modesty, vouyerism) I think it is no less abusive than the other extreme... .

I had a brief encounter with a young girl from Morocco a few years ago and she told me some similar stories. But in the Middle East, both sexes must lower their eyes when encountering someone of the opposite sex. Men must be covered from the shoulders to the knees, while women must cover everything except the hands, feet, and face. (Of course, in Catholicism the dress code for Nuns is similar-abuses in the Priesthood is a whole nother in-denial story) :

Hey Wayfarer!

I'm trying to get up to speed on the discussion...who here is the Materialist?

The jist of my argument is that no matter how much we try to deny the value of aesthetics, it remains an integral part of the human experience/phenomena-unconsciously. Now I would be more than happy to answer your concerns, but it would hijack the thread. I think you raise very important questions that deserve attention, separate (but not completely) from aesthetics.

(If you would like me to start one, I will... .)

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. — Possibility

And his crying is a sign that he/she receives pleasure through objectification, which is part, of the physical phenomenon of Love. But at that level of development, it appears to be exclusively physical. (In the alternative, explain the love you have for an object that is newly born.)

I don’t even know what you mean by ‘material agency’ — Possibility

Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

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. — Possibility

Again, no-brainer. Otherwise, you may want to study the history of sex, pornography, Eros, etc. etc. In that case, material agency is that which is being valued. And as such, it's being valued through the women's choice.

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. — Possibility

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

Ah, now there are material objects. Is this a subset of physical objects (the set in which we're included)? If so, what is the distinction between material objects and other physical objects in general; in particular, the distinction between material objects and the physical objects you say we are? Is that distinction related to your claim that we're "more than purely/exclusively objective-objects"? Or are we material objects as well? — Ciceronianus the White

Great questions CW. Why don't you start another thread. Call it something like: Ontology and Materialism: Subject-Object. BTW, I tried doing a search on that topic and nothing really came up...so it might be interesting... . It would certainly be interesting to explore the materialists' view of consciousness viz objectification of women/men.

When it is the ONLY factor in human relations, that is objectification, and a denial of one’s humanity at the very least. — Possibility

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

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. — Possibility

I'm not following you there, how is their material agency being denied? (Are they not using their material agency to empower their way of Being?)

but less so in others, including romantic relations. — Possibility

Please provide statistics on this. I'd be willing to bet over 50% of romantic relationships begin with some form of physical infatuation before it turned into true love (Eros/Love at first site).

This is very different to repeated experiences forming your patterns of self-awareness. — Possibility

Since you seem to be a very self-aware individual, I would recommend you empower yourself such to appreciate beauty for what it is, and all it could be, instead of projecting the past (dysfunctional) agency into it.

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. — Possibility

That's a no-brainer, agreed. However, you are in denial of its intrinsic value.

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. — Possibility

Kind of a paradox there. You keep slipping back into this dysfunctional projection of agency, instead of looking at it for what it is. What it means to be human is that we all objectify each other, rightly and wrongly, because we are all physical material objects. Rightly or wrongly, I would never fall in love with a 300lb woman. If we were not discriminating Beings, passionate romance would not exist. Remember Eros?

Granted, you want to reconcile this love as being a higher love, I get that (mind body spirit). But ontologically, you seem to be unable to make the proper distinctions of material agency and aesthetics.

Otherwise, how, as you say, do we "learn about reality beyond our experiences"?

The objectification of objects is objectionable in certain cases. — Ciceronianus the White

That begs the question, why would it be objectional if the object is a material object?

CW!

Be cautious not to project too much there Ciceranus LOL. Read what I've been saying. It's a no-brainer, that exclusive objectification of women in a moral way is unacceptable nor something to be valued in an ethical way. But this thread was posted in General Philosophy; not Ethics.

It might be obvious to also say we're both physical and meta-physical creatures, or if you prefer, both concrete thinking beings. So, those are all good questions you have, but I strongly urge you to start another thread. I would be delighted to participate.

So thank you BTW, for unsuccessfully trying to hijack same LOL.