Let me ask you: do you believe that there’s a point (which may vary between men) at which a sexual act is a foregone conclusion? — Possibility

Nah. I think I felt more like that when I was younger though - not that I was "entitled to sex", just that I got more pissed off and bamboozled with rejections.

It’s actually a good question. Casual sex for the most part is a mutual fantasy - it’s a dance of cognitive dissonance. He pretends he’s interested in a relationship beyond sex, and I pretend not to notice the pretense. When I stretch and test his performance, though, his true colours will show through under the surface. From this I can decide whether I think the game is worth playing out, whether I buys into the fantasy, or not. — Possibility

That's interesting. So for you it actually doesn't matter whether the connection is "genuine" or not, just whether you're in the mood, physically attracted enough and whether he's performed/improvised/responded in a manner that suits your moment to moment expectations/desires?

Their aim is to gradually eliminate or obscure her options. That’s the transgression. It’s a danger that women are not always prepared for, and that men may not even realise is a problem - until they’re accused of rape. — Possibility

:up:

It's very easy to reduce someone to the role they are subscribed/expected to perform.

A more pernicious (and all too common) form of it seems to be doing whatever you can to erode your target's personal boundaries.

So, for me at least, there’s a difference between not giving a damn about an extended relationship and not giving a damn about your sexual partner as a fellow human being with agency. I enjoy the pretense of a ‘possible’ romantic connection as much as the next girl, but underneath that is the real question: Is he respecting my freedom to choose? — Possibility

That also makes a lot of sense to me. Any form of intimacy shouldn't have to be linked to a romantic relationship for its validation, conversely; cherish transient instances of intimacy, they are all too rare.

Thank you for indulging my question.

What she wants from him is not just sex, but human interaction, so if she starts to feel like she should have more of a choice in how it goes then she’s going to want out. It seems to me that this is where the main issue lies, but she often realises this only when she has poor choices left.

So, for me at least, there’s a difference between not giving a damn about an extended relationship and not giving a damn about your sexual partner as a fellow human being with agency. I enjoy the pretense of a ‘possible’ romantic connection as much as the next girl, but underneath that is the real question: Is he respecting my freedom to choose? — Possibility

Possibilty!

With all due respect, this almost seems like a head game. I don't think that's your intention, and maybe I read it wrong. Firstly, I don't know where you are getting your stats, but many women just want sex. Depending on the particular season of one's life ( in college) for example, those existential needs rear their heads. Similarly, when I worked in a night club in a tourist town years back (not in a band like I am now), women would come in and felt free to be promiscuous because they were not recognized locally.

Secondly, of course the old-school obvious definition of objectification is a no-brainer. I mean, it's an abhorrent, detestable example of what human nature is capable of.. . Okay then, so now what? Please tell me how objectification of men and women is a bad thing, when doing your dance?

My point was that you cannot assume a woman’s intentions purely by the way she’s dressed.
— Possibility

For the most part , I respectfully disagree. If a man looks like a pimp, he just might be a pimp. If he looks like a football player, wrestler, musician, doctor...ad nauseum...you get the idea. A person's attire tells a lot about them. — 3017amen

A person’s attire suggests a lot about them, but to make assumptions purely by the way they’re dressed can be rude, insulting and dangerous. Just because someone’s wearing scrubs and a white coat, doesn’t make them qualified to operate on you, does it?

Perhaps I meet too many angry women (or man hater's not sure) but even in social environments, asking those kinds of questions, to a woman, unfortunately is not received well. People [women] have a hard time with the truth. I mean, we all want transparency, honestly, and all the rest, but many folks can't handle what they ask for...why is that? — 3017amen

This is a common excuse, but I’m not buying it. Have a little courage - I’m suggesting you ask a question, not offer a judgement or a ‘truth’.

but a fat ugly guy won’t get away with the same slick, shallow moves even if I’m desperate, I’m afraid. Most women are looking for a sexual partner - not sex, per say.
— Possibility

I'm just a bit confused there, can you explain that distinction a little better? On the one hand, you seem to be saying looks don't matter, then on the other you seem to care. For example, when you say a fat ugly guy gets different treatment, you are saying that appearances actually do matter, no? — 3017amen

I never said I didn’t care about looks - they’re not a dealbreaker, for me. Appearances matter more if I’m only looking for an ego boost, though. And if I’m willing to play the casual sex game with someone who clearly is just after a conquest, then I’m going to be choosy about it.

I think a good starting point would be your definition of 'a partner'. Is it not sex and companionship?Now, if all you are talking about is a guy who is considerate, kind, caring, intelligent, mature, that's all common sense stuff. We're adults here.

I know many women who've told me if the sex ain't good, they walk! Similarly, I can't imagine them even considering a sex partner who is unappealing. My point is, how do we escape objectification in a world of objectivity? — 3017amen

‘Partner’ indicates a human interaction between freely choosing adults. See my response to fdrake above for more on this.

person’s attire suggests a lot about them, but to make assumptions purely by the way they’re dressed can be rude, insulting and dangerous. Just because someone’s wearing scrubs and a white coat, doesn’t make them qualified to operate on you, does it? — Possibility

Really? By all Objective appearances, absolutely. If a Doctor dresses the part, would you reasonably assume he was a doctor and thereby allow him to operate on you? Or, on the other hand, while you are laying there semi-conscious, would you ask for his resume?

This is a common excuse, but I’m not buying it. Have a little courage - I’m suggesting you ask a question, not offer a judgement or a ‘truth’. — Possibility

Well you should buy it. Or at least be true to yourself here. The fact is, you probably get perturbed when someone doesn't like what you are wearing. Or, as you say, when someone questions your attire. For many reasons, this makes you feel less than a woman, because your self-esteem is partially attached to your appearance (simple psychology here):

1. Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it. True or false?

I never said I didn’t care about looks - they’re not a dealbreaker, for me. Appearances matter more if I’m only looking for an ego boost, though. And if I’m willing to play the casual sex game with someone who clearly is just after a conquest, then I’m going to be choosy about it. — Possibility

And I argue that it is a deal breaker. Are you trying to tell me a fat-ugly-bald guy (subjective criteria/apologies to fat ugly bald men here) who has bad personal hygiene , who is the most honorable, intelligent, caring man on the globe and that you would welcome passionate love making with him? If so, does this perpetuate the gold-digger archetype?

‘Partner’ indicates a human interaction between freely choosing adults. See my response to fdrake above for more on this. — Possibility

Of course. And that human interaction is making love/having sex with someone who is objectively, appealing to you, both logically and physically. No?

Not at all defending Schopenhauer's behavior, but this story always makes me chuckle just because of how ridiculous and petty it is. — darthbarracuda

It seems he wasn't a likeable man in general, prone to insult, pretentious and arrogant. But perhaps he associated the woman too much with his mother, with whom he had an antagonistic relationship. As might be expected, he claimed the woman he pushed deliberately fell in an effort to set him up for legal action. A court disagreed.

So let's face it, you get men and women all together in one big building, and sooner or later somebody's going to start fucking.

Is that objectification I wonder? — 3017amen

Why believe that finding someone sexually attractive and acting on that attraction constitutes objectification? As far as I'm aware, nobody has claimed that it's immoral or improper to desire someone or have consensual sex with them.

That's not what I'm saying, read my earlier post to you... . You seem all twisted up over the ethical implications.... .

I'm arguing one cannot escape pure objectification in a world of physical appearances.

Possibilty!

With all due respect, this almost seems like a head game. I don't think that's your intention, and maybe I read it wrong. Firstly, I don't know where you are getting your stats, but many women just want sex. Depending on the particular season of one's life ( in college) for example, those existential needs rear their heads. Similarly, when I worked in a night club in a tourist town years back (not in a band like I am now), women would come in and felt free to be promiscuous because they were not recognized locally. — 3017amen

Well, I don’t agree that sex as an act is an existential need. It’s a biological urge, sure. But I’d be pretty confident that those women being ‘promiscuous’ do not ‘just want sex’ as an act. I’d say they’re exercising a freedom of choice they probably don’t feel they have at home: to casually explore sexual encounters and partners so they can discover what is valuable to them. These aren’t stats, by the way - they’re opinions from many years experiencing the world as a woman and in the confidence of many other women.

Secondly, of course the old-school obvious definition of objectification is a no-brainer. I mean, it's an abhorrent, detestable example of what human nature is capable of.. . Okay then, so now what? Please tell me how objectification of men and women is a bad thing, when doing your dance? — 3017amen

Objectifying men or women in the casual sex ‘dance’ contributes to an erosion of agency. If you perceive a woman only as an object of your sexual desire, then you’re likely to perceive her agency - her capacity to reject you or to desire someone else - as an unacceptable threat. Likewise with men. It’s what men and women are capable of when threatened by an ‘object’ that can be a ‘bad thing’.

Really? By all Objective appearances, absolutely. If a Doctor dresses the part, would you reasonably assume he was a doctor and thereby allow him to operate on you? Or, on the hand, while you are laying there semi-conscious, would you ask for his resume? — 3017amen

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...

You’re not just making assumptions about the doctor based on what she’s wearing - you’d be taking into account her behaviour, the situation and other people’s behaviour towards her. And it’s customary for a doctor to introduce themselves and clearly express their intentions before they even examine you. Why? Because THEY know that just because they’re dressed as a doctor, you should never assume their intentions.

Well, I don’t agree that sex as an act is an existential need. It’s a biological urge, sure. But I’d be pretty confident that those women being ‘promiscuous’ do not ‘just want sex’ as an act. I’d say they’re exercising a freedom of choice they probably don’t feel they have at home: to casually explore sexual encounters and partners so they can discover what is valuable to them. These aren’t stats, by the way - they’re opinions from many years experiencing the world as a woman and in the confidence of many — Possibility

Yes, and I would submit you are lying to yourself. You seem to be making political statements based on an unrealistic ideology. Because sex is such a personal topic, people will typically tell you what they want you to hear. They are most likely feeding into your narrative. Have you studied the history of Sex? Are you aware of ancient concubines? Asian penis (and vagina) worship? What about porn, why are so many porn stars seemingly available on the internet? Just type-in men's dicks or women's pussies... . My point is that those women DO want sex, and they don't want it with just anybody, or wait, do they?

Objectifying men or women in the casual sex ‘dance’ contributes to an erosion of agency. If you perceive a woman only as an object of your sexual desire, then you’re likely to perceive her agency - her capacity to reject you or to desire someone else - as an unacceptable threat. Likewise with men. It’s what men and women are capable of when threatened by an ‘object’ that can be a ‘bad thing’. — Possibility

Sure, and this 'agency' is what a handsome well kept man, who brings a lot to the table, has to offer you. Otherwise, you would marry an ugly-fat-bald guy who smells bad just because he's kind considerate, caring and has money. The fact remains, you want it all. And you should want it all. A handsome, intelligent, responsible and successful man around your arms in a social gathering, as well as someone to father your children and snuggle at night. It follows that you would not settle for casual sex with the former, or would you?

As far as a threat, a threat to what? I'm not following that? If I am an attractive, successful man, why should I feel threatened? Objectively, I care for my body, and respect those women who care for theirs.

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.

I'm arguing one cannot escape pure objectification in a world of physical appearances. — 3017amen

Insofar as anything can be treated as an object, that is an objectification. But it doesn't mean the same thing as objectification in the way other people besides you are using it. SEP lists the following aspects of objectification:

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
Rae Langton (2009, 228–229) has added three more features to Nussbaum’s list:
reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

If you really can't see the difference between what you're talking about and the intended topic after reading that list, I dunno what to tell you. If you want to treat them both as the same thing - why? What purpose could it possibly serve? :chin:

That's not what I'm saying, read my earlier post to you... . You seem all twisted up over the ethical implications.... .

I'm arguing one cannot escape pure objectification in a world of physical appearances. — 3017amen

Well, as you wish. For me, the ethical implications of objectification are the only implications of significance. The subject/object thing does nothing for me. I'm not a fan of dualisms. So, carry on.

fdrake! Thanks I get that. That's obvious. If we were to agree to the standard definition, it could be answered in one post: unacceptable behavior. There would be no need to argue that, right? Instead, this is what I'm arguing:

1.Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it.

2. Consider the executive career woman who finds a well-dressed man attractive. The man knows that his attire, as well as his good looks and physique, are appealing to women. Further his self-esteem is such that not only does he respect himself enough to stay healthy and fit but he also respects other women who do the same.

[And so back to the career woman who finds this particular male attractive. ]Does she find him attractive as a potential sex partner? Does she find him attractive as a potential romance? If so, is not one of the components of love what they call, romantic love, and is that not based on objectification?

3. From a perspective of existential phenomenology and the human condition, we have the dynamic of subject-object. From this perspective, morals and ethics (and logic) are not considered in the phenomenon of romance. Even more so, in the attachment theory; baby sees Mom, Mom leaves the room, baby cries. The object known as the mother has left the baby's sight. The ideal object is that which is being perceived. How important is the object being perceived?

4. In the philosophy of aesthetics, how shall we parse the differences between the appreciation of object's beauty and the objectification of same, excluding the implications of deleterious moral and ethical behavior?

I'm trying to remove the psychological [moral/ethical] component of objectification, and instead, trying to shed light on the nature of the phenomenal experience, including the existential component that we seemingly cannot escape. Also, I realize this may be hard to do since the concept of objective beauty is tantamount to one's well-being. I submit that the definition of objectification has more implications...

And so , in that context(s), do we make judgements based upon objectification?

1.Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it. — 3017amen

Self concept is much different from treating oneself as an object; a person enacts a self concept in how they evaluate themselves - and hows are not whats. Unless you're making the previous metaphysical move that any way of interacting with a distinct entity is an objectification, in which case why bother, if you already "get that"? The metaphysical baggage you're bringing to the discussion is obfuscating the issue.

The ideal object is that which is being perceived. How important is the object being perceived? — 3017amen

So yes, it seems you are making the move that any way that a subject relates to anything besides itself contains an aspect of objectification. Entirely irrelevant to objectification as a mode of human conduct; even non-objectifying ethical conduct could be objectifying in terms of your subject-object stuff; which is really a sign that you're talking about something much different.

If any relationship towards another human, or even oneself, has aspects of objectification (relating to something as an object (the metaphysical category)), what you're saying is quite irrelevant to the notion of objectification under discussion in the thread. The only purchase you've gained in the argument is by muddying the terms.

For me, the ethical implications of objectification are the only implications of significance. The subject/object thing does nothing for me. — Ciceronianus the White

Are you sure?

Let's look at Architecture briefy. The interior designer establishes interior finishes, including paint colors. They propose colors based upon many things, one of which is the emotive force behind the visual impact to human's. For instance, the color wheel indicates yellow is a happy color; red is a firey anxious color. Are we objectifying the visual impact of colors?

We could draw analogies to cars, houses, buildings, you name it. Anything that is an object gets objectified. No?

The metaphysical baggage you're bringing to the discussion is obfuscating the issue. — fdrake

fdrake!

Not sure I'm follwing you there. Are you saying the feeling of colors (for example) is both an objectification of an object, as well as a metaphysical phenomenon (Qualia) associated with consciousness? In other words, both a physical and meta-physical attribute of human existence?

Entirely irrelevant to objectification as a mode of human conduct; even non-objectifying ethical conduct could be objectifying in terms of your subject-object stuff; which is really a sign that you're talking about something much different. — fdrake

And what do you presume I'm talking about viz physical human relationships?

This is the definition of "objectification" with which this thread began:

In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person, or sometimes an animal, as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others.
— Wikipedia — TheMadFool

Not to say Wikipedia is the last word on anything, but as this definition commenced the thread and was plainly intended to apply to the thread, I think it's what should be taken to be the "objectification" at issue.

It's unclear to me that the colors, cars, houses, etc. you refer to are being or can be dehumanized. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that only humans can be dehumanized, and that only the humanity of humans may be disallowed.

I suspect, then, that you're referring--for reasons unknown to me--to something other than the dehumanization of women, or their treatment as an object or thing. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to; perhaps you think that everything we experience are, necessarily, objects to us in some sense or we perceive them as such. I'm with Dewey in most things, and so tend to think of experience as an interaction with our environment, often non-cognitive, so wouldn't necessarily agree with such a view. But whatever you may be referring to, I don't think it pertains to this thread.

Not to say Wikipedia is the last word on anything, but as this definition commenced the thread and was plainly intended to apply to the thread, I think it's what should be taken to be the "objectification" at issue. — Ciceronianus the White

CW!

Thanks, but as I said, if that's the only definition, then one post should answer the question, right? Have you considered the philosophy of aesthetics? For instance, "realizations" (which are always physical entities) suggest that objects are a work of art. If the human body ( both male and female) is a work of art and considered valued as something beautiful (or not beautiful) hasn't the object in effect become objectified, yes?

Same with colors. When selecting colors, you select them based on mental criteria, as
I briefly discussed previously (in Architecture). In effect, you are objectifying the object. You are making judgements about what is appropriate to suit your criterion. This color over that color. You like one over the other; one object over another object.

And so, to your point, herewith is your dehumanization analogy. It can be done with human beings unconsciously. Whether it is big butts, small feet, nose hair, unibrow, etc. etc. we objectify the physical object.

Think of it another way, why do you care to look in the mirror?

You continue to regurgitate the standard definition from an unethical, dysfunctional viewpoint. That's fine. Everyone gets that. My point is that there is another element to this so-called sense of perception. And in turn, it becomes an intrinsic or integral part of the objectification-of-the-object phenomenon.

(In this aesthetic theory, one could change the OP to 'The Objectification of Men, Cars, etc.' and similar if not the same rules would apply, no? Any object can be objectified, rightly or wrongly.)

Not to say Wikipedia is the last word on anything, but as this definition commenced the thread and was plainly intended to apply to the thread, I think it's what should be taken to be the "objectification" at issue.

It's unclear to me that the colors, cars, houses, etc. you refer to are being or can be dehumanized. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that only humans can be dehumanized, and that only the humanity of humans may be disallowed.

I suspect, then, that you're referring--for reasons unknown to me--to something other than the dehumanization of women, or their treatment as an object or thing. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to; perhaps you think that everything we experience are, necessarily, objects to us in some sense or we perceive them as such. I'm with Dewey in most things, and so tend to think of experience as an interaction with our environment, often non-cognitive, so wouldn't necessarily agree with such a view. But whatever you may be referring to, I don't think it pertains to this thread. — Ciceronianus the White

Sexual Objectification

I don't think it pertains to this thread. — Ciceronianus the White

Are you sure?

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

Again, any object can be objectified rightly or wrongly.

Well we're in agreement then. But I suspect you have a higher bar for what you consider to be a "genuine connection". — jamalrob

I am personally not comfortable having sex with someone unless I have an ongoing relationship with them. I think if I truly care about someone then I want to continue to care for them in the future. It is hard for me to imagine caring about a person I have a one-night-stand with (beyond the usual care I give towards strangers). Upon reflection I suppose this might mean I take sex more seriously than others. I guess I consider it to be a more privileged activity, idk.

Other people might feel that sex is an ordinary activity that can be shared with strangers. It's not my place to judge, even if it's difficult for me to understand. Live and let live.

Well you should buy it. Or at least be true to yourself here. The fact is, you probably get perturbed when someone doesn't like what you are wearing. Or, as you say, when someone questions your attire. — 3017amen

I am being true to myself - you are dismissing my account of inner reality based on your assumption that everyone thinks the way you think they do. I’m trying to be honest here about my inner process, because there are very few women on this forum to represent (and you wonder why...?), and some assumptions need to be corrected. So stop telling me what I’m thinking or feeling, and try listening instead.

Yes, I get perturbed when someone feels the need to tell me that they don’t like what I’m wearing, as if assuming that I dress with their needs and preferences in mind. My self esteem is partially attached to my appearance, yes - but I am also more than what or how I appear, and I will recognise and react to being treated as if my choices are not my own.

For many reasons, this makes you feel less than a woman, because your self-esteem is partially attached to your appearance (simple psychology here):

1. Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it. True or false? — 3017amen

Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, but my self worth is not wrapped up in it at all. In most situations in my life, feeling unattractive or unsexy doesn’t even register. So false.

Yes, and I would submit you are lying to yourself. You seem to be making political statements based on an unrealistic ideology. Because sex is such a personal topic, people will typically tell you what they want you to hear. They are most likely feeding into your narrative. Have you studied the history of Sex? Are you aware of ancient concubines? Asian penis (and vagina) worship? What about porn, why are so many porn stars seemingly available on the internet? Just type-in men's dicks or women's pussies... . My point is that those women DO want sex, and they don't want it with just anybody, or wait, do they? — 3017amen

Again with the dismissive attitude towards my perspective. Sex isn’t about the act for women - it’s about an expression of agency. Women, for the most part, do NOT just want a sexual act with any body, detached from a human being. They will often choose to feed into the male narrative, but they ALWAYS do it for their own reasons, not yours. When you assume that they do it for the reasons that make sense to you, you deny them subjectivity and agency.

Sure, and this 'agency' is what a handsome well kept man, who brings a lot to the table, has to offer you. Otherwise, you would marry an ugly-fat-bald guy who smells bad just because he's kind considerate, caring and has money. The fact remains, you want it all. And you should want it all. A handsome, intelligent, responsible and successful man around your arms in a social gathering, as well as someone to father your children and snuggle at night. It follows that you would not settle for casual sex with the former, or would you? — 3017amen

Oh, dear - is that really how you think women choose sexual partners? A handsome, well-kept man who has success and money does NOT offer me agency. I already have it, thank you very much.

The truth is that most guys will be fat, ugly, bald or smelly at some point in their life. An absence of these should not be a reason to marry someone. They can, however, be reasons to pass on casual sex, which is about that moment. Rich and successful factor into the casual sex game only as part of the fantasy - a creative thinker can work poor or unsuccessful into a narrative easy enough, and still get laid.

I think you might be confusing casual sex with finding a life partner. They are two completely different strategies for women, and they’re looking for very different qualities. Just because it all looks the same from your end, does not mean it is.

As far as a threat, a threat to what? I'm not following that? If I am an attractive, successful man, why should I feel threatened? Objectively, I care for my body, and respect those women who care for theirs. — 3017amen

It is exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem. An attractive, successful man believes that he should NOT feel threatened by a woman because he assumes she has no reason to say ‘no’, and a fat, poor man assumes that a woman is saying ‘no’ because he is fat or poor - but has anyone asked the woman what HER reasoning is? You’re reducing a complex and diverse decision-making process into an over-simplified value system that is grossly inaccurate for predicting how a woman chooses.

And how exactly do you ‘respect’ a woman who cares for her body? By appreciating the body in motion, or appreciating the choices she makes with it?

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.

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.

Yes, I get perturbed when someone feels the need to tell me that they don’t like what I’m wearing, as if assuming that I dress with their needs and preferences in mind. My self esteem is partially attached to my appearance, yes - but I am also more than what or how I appear, and I will recognise and react to being treated as if my choices are not my own. — Possibility

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)?

Women, for the most part, do NOT just want a sexual act with any body, detached from a human being. They will often choose to feed into the male narrative, but they ALWAYS do it for their own reasons, not yours. — Possibility

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

think you might be confusing casual sex with finding a life partner. They are two completely different strategies for women, and they’re looking for very different qualities. Just because it all looks the same from your end, does not mean it is. — Possibility

Okay so in the context of objectifying the object what criteria is appropriate in both finding a life partner and having casual sex?

exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem. An attractive, successful man believes that he should NOT feel threatened by a woman because he assumes she has no reason to say ‘no’, and a fat, poor man assumes that a woman is saying ‘no’ because he is fat or poor - but has anyone asked the woman what HER reasoning is? You’re reducing a complex and diverse decision-making process into an over-simplified value system that is grossly inaccurate for predicting how a woman chooses.

And how exactly do you ‘respect’ a woman who cares for her body? By appreciating the body in motion, or appreciating the choices she makes with it? — Possibility

Sorry for the multiple post my phone isn't working very well.

Don't overthink this Possibility. The first point relates to the fact that an attractive healthy well built successful man should have a self-esteem such that emotionally, he is able to love himself in a healthy way. And in turn, he is able to love a woman as he loves himself.

Not to mention that he holds women in a high regard and respects them, even more so, when they are healthy and physically fit. And that is because they respect their respective bodies enough not only for their own well-being but for the benefit of their partners. In other words, I would want to keep my body in shape so that my partner can enjoy my body just as I would want the same in return.. Common sense?

So the answer to this question ..."And how exactly do you ‘respect’ a woman who cares for her body? By appreciating the body in motion, or appreciating the choices she makes with it?" ...is obvious, the answer is both. I appreciate the beauty of the human body. Personally, aside from extremely obese women, I appreciate most sizes including the archetypical curvy 'Greek' figure.