I don't understand women all that well. — TheMadFool

Gratuitous. If you're a man, then you do not understand women at all, and neither does any other man. What might be interesting are theories as to how or why they're incomprehensible - to the end of actually understanding them! (Laughing out loud.)

But I think the gap - the abyss - is intrinsically unbridgeable. Like cats and dogs. In some cases they can get along together.

But perhaps a more serious question would be if women see their own choice of clothing as objectifying them. And of course my business suit and sports jackets and ties don't objectify me at all, anymore than my week-end jeans and polo jersey.

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

Wanting to look good is not the same as wanting to be treated as an object.

But perhaps a more serious question would be if women see their own choice of clothing as objectifying them. — tim wood

The types of attire I mentioned are, well, designed to expose or, better put, are sexually suggestive - the very thing that is the basis of men taking them as objects (of sex).

Women want to have it both ways - make men desire them as objects (of sex) but not make men think of them as objects (of sex). Either there's a very deep mystery here that begs thorough investigation or women are crazy.

Wanting to look good is not the same as wanting to be treated as an object. — Michael

Indeed, but the heart of the issue is women want to look good in a way that hints of a probably subconscious desire to become objects of mens' desire.

Indeed, but the heart of the issue is women want to look good in a way that hints of a probably subconscious desire to become objects of mens' desire. — TheMadFool

You're equivocating. Wanting to be an "object of desire" in this sense is wanting to be desirable. That's not the same as wanting to be treating as an object.

Oh brother...

Fer fuck's sake.

Not all women are the same. Some may not understand themselves. Understanding women is no different than understanding anyone else on the fucking planet, assuming that they understand themselves. Talk to them, and listen to what they say. As is the case with any and all honest and successful efforts to understand another's philosophical position here on these forums...

Grant their terms!

It's no different, in principle, than understanding Black Lives Matter!!!

You're equivocating. Wanting to be an "object of desire" in this sense is wanting to be desirable. That's not the same as wanting to be treating as an object. — Michael

Wanting to be an "object of desire" is tantamount to wanting to be "treated as an object."

Wanting to be an "object of desire" is tantamount to wanting to be "treated as an object." — TheMadFool

No it isn't. When I dress to look good I don't want to be treated as a disposable dildo. I certainly want to attract women but to think that that amounts to the desire to be objectified is patently false.

Not all women are the same — creativesoul

Really? How do clothing businesses sustain themselves if not for their products selling like hot cakes? These products include the types I mentioned - with plunging necklines and rising hemlines.

No it isn't. When I dress to look good I don't want to be treated as a disposable dildo. I certainly want to attract women but to think that that amounts to the desire to be objectified is patently false. — Michael

What exactly do you mean by "I dress to look good?

What exactly do you mean by "I dress to look good? — TheMadFool

I dress to increase my sex appeal.

Indeed, but the heart of the issue is women want to look good in a way that hints of a probably subconscious desire to become objects of mens' desire. — TheMadFool

Probably, but not only objects of desire. I think the main issue is men deriving only sexual value from women.

Not a good start.

A woman can walk around naked and not want to be treated as just a sex object, partner, or what have you.

You are not realizing that someone can want to look appealing and want to be viewed as that AND so much more.

A woman can walk around naked and not want to be treated as just a sex object, partner, or what have you.

You are not realizing that someone can want to look appealing and want to be viewed as that AND so much more. — creativesoul

This, a billion times. Imagine a guy's potential on every matter in his life being reduced to the sexiness of his chest because he once wore an open shirt on holiday. Once someone's caught your eye, surely you talk to them and stuff, get to know them, know their likes and dislikes, their skills and hobbies, their politics, the kinds of music they like, decide if you like them as a person. It seems weird to me that so many men seem to continue, after all that, to think of a particular woman as little more than "the tits I'm currently interested in."

But I think the stuff I enumerated... guys like that, it washes over them somehow. They probably don't ever really get to know the woman they like. Sucks to be them, really.

Yeah... some around here say stuff that smacks of "they had it coming to them" when dressed a certain way and drunk... after being raped. Pathetic.

Takes two to tango, honestly. Who's really being objectified am I right.

A man who appears vulnerable and is drunk out of his mind may be robbed and killed at a much greater chance. While I wouldn't say he had it coming to him, he did set the table, so to speak. The world we live in is not a masterpiece across every corner. Fortune favors the prepared.

One (man or woman) who dresses up with the intention to sexually entice others is in the first place objectifying themselves. That they are then also objectified by the beholder is the natural consequence.

After all, wouldn't the choice for such dress imply we seek to exchange the enticement of the other for whatever attention, drinks, sexual favors. One is using their body as currency to get what it is they want.

Of course, wanting to look 'good' and wanting to look 'sexy' aren't necessarily one and the same.

Not a good start.

A woman can walk around naked and not want to be treated as just a sex object, partner, or what have you.

You are not realizing that someone can want to look appealing and want to be viewed as that AND so much more. — creativesoul

I'm in no way claiming "they had it coming" but I'm bothered by how women dress in ways that seem to attract all the wrong kind of attention to themselves and then seem offended by it.

What exactly is the function of clothing? A few possibilities spring to mind: to protect yourself from the elements - low necklines and miniskirts do all but that; for modesty - low necklines and miniskirts are definitely not about modesty. What other purpose(s) do clothes have I wonder?

It seems that womens' apparel are a paradox for they're defined as clothes but fail to fulfill any of its functions. In fact, as per the view I'm expressing here, they're anti-clothes.

Wanting to be an "object of desire" is tantamount to wanting to be "treated as an object." — TheMadFool

I disagree with Michael on this: I think you're right. To find someone physically attractive just is to objectify them.

The problem is in treating or viewing someone only as an object, which is probably the sense in which "objectification" is used when described as a problem. One can dress with the knowledge that one will be objectified, but one ought to be able to expect to be treated as a person as well.

It's like Kant's ethics. It's not that you can never treat someone as a means, but that you ought never treat someone as nothing but that.

I'm in no way claiming "they had it coming" but I'm bothered by how women dress in ways that seem to attract all the wrong kind of attention to themselves and then seem offended by it. — TheMadFool

Actually, a crowbar separation needs to be made between two distinct things, although I think creativesoul covered it. When women complain about sexual objectification, they usual mean all of the time, in every situation. I don't think they typically mean e.g. "during the lapdance I was giving".

However, I did have a fascinating conversation with a feminist once who explained that men should never hit on women, that it was misogynistic. I pointed out the obvious effect this would have on the survival of the species, so she conceded that it would be fine if a man she fancied hit on her, but "ugly" men should not. I asked how either man could know if she fancied them without approaching her. Her response was: "They should just know."

Now that woman was a nutcase, but there are plenty of nutcases, maybe enough that what you're talking about is a woman dressing sexually provocatively but calling out men she doesn't like on looking at her as a sexual object there and then?

The problem here is that men tend to think it must be about them. And yes maybe the first woman to wear a miniskirt wanted to be noticed in that way, but then miniskirts became fashionable, and women who are guided by fashion were apt to wear them. It's not a "Can you guess what I've got up here", it's just fitting in. There's also one-upmanship to consider as well. If revealing clothes become fashionable, then more revealing clothes become higher status.

The problem is in treating or viewing someone only as an object, which is probably the sense in which "objectification" is used when described as a problem. One can dress with the knowledge that one will be objectified, but one ought to be able to expect to be treated as a person as well. — jamalrob

That makes perfect sense.

Red and Black, safe for Jack. (Scarlet King Snake)
Red and Yellow, will kill a fellow. (Coral Snake)

A Coral Snake wouldn't want to be mistaken for a Scarlet King Snake but the converse is false.

When women complain about sexual objectification, they usual mean all of the time, in every situation — Kenosha Kid

:ok:

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

Eric Berne identified this as a harmless form of the game of Rapo. A woman dresses provocatively.I f you look, you lose.

More advanced forms of this game, of course, have put men in prison or gotten them lynched.

http://www.ericberne.com/games-people-play/rapo/

A man who appears vulnerable and is drunk out of his mind may be robbed and killed at a much greater chance. While I wouldn't say he had it coming to him, he did set the table, so to speak. The world we live in is not a masterpiece across every corner. Fortune favors the prepared. — Outlander

Regarding the last claim:I'd rather be lucky than good, because when the two meet, the lucky one wins, or so they say. However, I am inclined to agree that luck is when preparation meets opportunity, or at least one can hedge one's own bets for more good luck to happen.

To the rest...

Sure, there are people in this world who will harm others for no good reason, and such people often look for victims by looking for those who are the easiest to take advantage of. One can increase their chances of not being taken advantage of - when possible - by taking the necessary precautions. However, this discussion is about seeing a woman, first and foremost, as a sexually desirable thing/object. With that in mind, there's nothing wrong with a woman wearing whatever she wants to wear, no matter how scantily clad that attire may be. Even if it is meant to attract the attention of men/women, even if it highlights all the parts of her that are sexually desirable, even if she wears it as a means to be noticed, it does not mean that that is all that that woman want's to achieve by wearing it.

It certainly does not warrant looking at her as only sexually desirable. It certainly does not warrant "cat calling". It certainly does warrant some sort of attention being given to the outfit itself. The actual reasons that a woman may wear some 'sexually provocative" outfit are wide ranging and specific to the individual. Some may want sexual attention. Some may not, but rather do it for themselves... because they think that they look good or sexy or whatever.

The short of it...

There is much more to a person(women included) than just their sexual aspects...

I'm in no way claiming "they had it coming" but I'm bothered by how women dress in ways that seem to attract all the wrong kind of attention to themselves and then seem offended by it. — TheMadFool

Good. Just be aware that many who do say that pave the way for doing so by saying things like you've been saying.

The problem is the wrong kinds of attention... not who's being paid the wrong kinds of attention to and for whatever reason those attention givers rationalize their own actions to themselves...

"Nice ass!"

"Fuck off you jerk!"

"What else did she expect wearing clothes that exposed her butt cheeks?"

Women aren't stupid. They are very intuitive with regard to other people

I wanted to follow up on 's good reply but beat me to it.

Everything, including everyone, is an object. But at least some objects are also subjects, persons, moral agents and patients, with thoughts and feelings, who matter as ends in themselves, not just as means to someone else's ends. To "objectify" someone isn't merely to affirm their objecthood, it's to deny their personhood.

In this specific case, someone (including the woman herself) can treat a woman as an object of sexual desire, without treating her as merely an object, without denying her personhood; and doing that is not objectification.

"And thus spoke the little old woman: You go to women? Do not forget the whip!" ... for Her to use :sweat:
~Freddy Zarathustra

Women want to have it both ways - make men desire them as objects (of sex) but not make men think of them as objects (of sex). — TheMadFool

What's wrong with that? Just because you - many (most?) hetero-males - can't handle that, doesn't entail it's wrong or that a woman shouldn't have her dawgs & her dignity too. :smirk:

Either there's a very deep mystery here that begs thorough investigation or women are crazy.

"Deep mystery"? None whatsoever. The allure of the power (à la will to power) of allure - desire that desires to be desired! :yum: (A. Honneth?) And yeah, as every woman can attest: they are crazy. It's not either-or, Fool. Also: "Women are crazy because men are stupid" about women, Thus Spoke George Carlin!

I've never been able to really live with them or without them. A flâneur's 'Pygmalion' all my days & nights, my promiscuous 'gaze' transfigures lusty flesh into lewd statuary - theirs and mine! - and back again. I've learned it's not what you objectify, my man, but, as in all things, (also) how you do it to it.

"All happiness or unhappiness solely depends upon the quality of the object to which we are attached by love." ~Benny Spinoza

:death: :flower: