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.

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. — Possibility

Possibility!!

Let's see, well, if a woman asks her man if she looks fat in that dress, and he tells her the truth, do you think she will handle that truth?

This almost begs another question. If the stereotypical (and please correct me here if I'm out of line) woman is supposedly more sensitive than a man, would it follow that you, being a woman, will more often than not default to taking things perhaps the wrong way (overreact)? Meaning, in cognition, some have argued that intellect, is subordinate to sentience. The jist is that the limbic system at the base of the brain is primitive in nature, and computes the feelings of fear, instincts, sensory processing, and so forth first, before its sent to the rational (larger) part of the brain. And, it's a small structure that other animals (small and large) share. Now why the woman's cognition computes things differently is a discussion for another time, but I think you get my point. And that is, the man, in your theory there of political correctness, would constantly be on egg-shells if they followed your advice from the foregoing quote.

I know that feeds into some old stereotype's, but I hope you can prove me wrong there...as I'm hopeful, as you suggested, that a man can ask a woman anything, without her getting defensive or otherwise taking it too personal and overreacting in the wrong way. Otherwise, your call for full transparency between the sexes is likely too idealistic and tantamount to little more than a pipe dream.

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.

I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool

No person, woman, man or any other kind of rational being, wishes to be treated like an object. I could say that without much understanding of anything in the world; it is simple logic. “Objectification” means turning something into an object (presumably something that wasn’t originally an object) and the only thing that isn’t an object, is a person.

No thinking being could possibly want to be a non-thinking being, because if it were, it wouldn’t want anything. Moreover, every conscious being wishes to be respected as such since its idea of itself necessarily includes its consciousness. We all, men and women, want to be respected and admired, and although some of us don’t mind presenting ourselves as something different from what we really are, we need to think that what we show the world is somehow attached to our personhood, or else we are not the ones who have these characteristics. Accordingly, an attractive woman needs to think she is attractive as a person and not as an object.

you could take the time to ASK her if there’s a particular reason why she wore that outfit today - and then LISTEN to what she has to say. — Possibility

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.

person, woman, man or any other kind of rational being, wishes to be treated like an object. I could say that without much understanding of anything in the world; it is simple logic. “Objectification” means turning something into an object (presumably something that wasn’t originally an object) and the only thing that isn’t an object, is a person. — Congau

The irony is we are treated like objects because we are physical objects. Can any physical object get objectified rightly or wrongly? Do you choose a romantic relationship partially on physical appearance? This may help:

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

It's a no-brainer to suggest human beings are more than purely/exclusively objective-objects. On the other hand, you cannot escape the phenomenal experience of our physical nature, and the underlying importance and impact to our volitional existence. The philosophy of aesthetics provides for a little insight there. Otherwise you will have to parse the differences between the physical and the metaphysical.

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. — Possibility

Of course, it's a no-brainer there. 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.

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. — Possibility

Great! There's progress. 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.

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. — Possibility

Okay, you're making progress there. 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. 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?

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. — Possibility

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... .

It's a no-brainer to suggest human beings are more than purely/exclusively objective-objects. — 3017amen

Why, I wonder, is it a "no-brainer" to say we're more than "purely/exclusively objective-objects" (whatever that may mean) if we're physical objects as you claim? Are we something in addition to physical objects? Are we non-physical physical objects? Are we physical objects with non-physical souls?

Congratulations, by the way, for successfully hijacking this thread.

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.

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. — 3017amen

I see. It isn't moral to objectify some physical objects, then, although we must perforce objectify them, since they're physical objects. The objectification of objects is objectionable in certain cases.

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?

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 women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool

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.

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. 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!

However, I suspect that these modern women would not appreciate being Politically objectified as a sex-toy to be used and thrown away, or stored in a closet. Unfortunately, women throughout history have been both Sexually and Politically objectified. In early civilizations, they were basically marketed as a man's "help meet", or as sex slaves, and their value was often judged like a commodity, a camel or a goat, rather than as a partner in a life-long relationship. This interpersonal inequity all too often resulted in abuse or abandonment. So societies were forced to enact political laws of marriage to protect wives & children from spousal trashing. Unequal power/sex relations are common among animals, and seems to be inherent in human nature (dimorphism, psychology, etc). But humans can choose to modify their inherent urges & behaviors in the interest of social harmony.

As your "Burka" note suggested, some absolutist moralizing cultures even went to the extreme of banning all sexual "displays" by females, because they were viewed as temptresses, luring young men astray from sexual chastity. But this complete segregation of the sexes is unnatural, and may result in unsavory covert behavior on both sides. So, modern democratic societies, with egalitarian & romantic ideals, have tried to have their sex and chastity too, by "liberating" women, and trusting men to "keep it in their pants". That's like playing with matches around beautiful fireworks : high risk, high reward??? I'll leave it for you to decide how well that combination of sexual & political liberation is working. :joke:

Sex Differences : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

Chastity : the ability to resist temptation

Help Mate : a subordinate household worker and associate.

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.

To be frank I'm pretty weary of some of the discussion here - I want to add the idea of perfectly healthy objectification, in which someone - man, woman, whatever - is happy to be trated as a sheer object of desire, if only to fuck a partner or enjoy the pleasures of whatever freaky kink with no strings and no commitment whatsoever. The question is weather this behaviour is being used as a crutch, or otherwise compromises what might be otherwise more healthy mechanisms of life-interaction, social or otherwise.

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.

The issues set in when objectification shifts from interpersonal to social or political - when men or women become objects at a level of media portrayal or social policy or whathaveyou. When objectification becomes the dominant mode of social understanding of gender or gender relations. There's a great deal to be said for objecting to that kind of objectification, which exploits the dynamics of interpersonal relations for advertising or power or narrative construction or whathaveyou. Otherwise, if you want to fuck anything that moves, or be fucked by anything that moves, all power to you. Be a slut, just a healthy one, if your psychology allows for it.

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.

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.

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. — Possibility

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.

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? — 3017amen

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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'm assuming you're over the age of 25 ie. when the brain is finished developing. If you deny not only your own humanity but someone else's, rather our position above the animals, specifically animal instinct, what is left? A few sounds we call words, a few inventions, shiny lights, tall buildings, and bombs? To some, that is all that distinguishes man from the animals. An object is something to be used or can be used and either exists solely due to the result of or is otherwise subservient to a higher intelligence or process. Until you distinguish man from animal and the mandatory social and moral fabric that comes with such a position the question is a rather moot one. How can an object objectify itself?

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?

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. — Possibility

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

If I could interject, maybe a good vocabulary to describe it is the distinction between a subjectivity and agency. In one of @StreetlightX's old threads I posted the following characterisation of what a subjectivity is.

• Subjectivities are more than roles, they become integrated capacities of a person which are exercised in how they live their life.
• Subjectivities are more than the application of an on-off property to a subject, like 'disabled' or 'traumatised'; they can inform and transform people in different degrees of similar ways; like episodic flashbacks vs more mundane intrusive memories; or in much different ways; like generalised anxiety vs dissociative disorder as comorbidities of PTSD.
• Subjectivities are to a large degree impersonal; they are composite patterns of behaviours, feelings and events which constrain individuals along a mode of variation. A person can be said to 'inhabit' the unfolding of PTSD just the same as they can inhabit walking; being a sufferer of PTSD or a walker respectively.

A subjectivity is close to a role a person embodies; a person might be a window shopper, a person might be a wheelchair user, a person might have depression. A role understood as instantiated with possible misfit in a person through their conduct. Every person embodies a spectrum of subjectivities.

I think perhaps the idea of a sexual subjectivity is relevant here; the dance of fantasy and social ritual ascribes a subjectivity to one's partner in the encounter, and one adopts a subjectivity to play a part in the dance. What role each plays may be found more or less agreeable, more or less erogenous, more or less freeing or transgressive, with the moving composition of their partner's desires.

What seems relevant here is the extent to which those subjectivities are negotiated in the encounter, whether it is an agent-agent relation manifesting as a (series of) subjectivity-subjectivity relation( s ), or whether one of the agents is nothing more than the desired subjectivity they could embody.

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.)

Great questions CW. Why don't you start another thread. — 3017amen

I'm just asking you to define the terms you've decided to use, you know. But if you prefer to avoid doing so, I suppose that's as good a way as any.

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... .)

A psychologist would never make an assumption without asking that question — Possibility

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

It isn’t about getting the ‘right’ answer, but about recognising that she has her own inner process — Possibility

When asked a question about oneself, “the inner process” that is supposedly revealed is sometimes quite irrelevant to the question. The person might try to think of a clever answer that really has nothing to do with what she has previously thought. That wouldn’t even be false consciousness but fail to express any consciousness at all.

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.

The issues set in when objectification shifts from interpersonal to social or political - when men or women become objects at a level of media portrayal or social policy or whathaveyou. When objectification becomes the dominant mode of social understanding of gender or gender relations. — StreetlightX

Well said, although I'd say political objectification is linked to sexual objectification in the sense that the former has origins in, and is perpetuated by, in no small part by, the latter. A man who's concerned about his woman's sexual needs, especially if she looks to greener pastures, will, in all likelihood, keep her on short leash lest he become a cuckold or the like; this tendency of men probably spills over into other freedoms a woman can have.