. 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 cuckold or the like; this tendency of men probably spills over into other freedoms a woman can have. — TheMadFool

A 'man' who is so insecure and small dicked about his relationship that he thinks of women on leashes and worries about her 'looking for greener pastures' is no man, and should probably fucking hang himself. Sorry but this language is revolting.

Accordingly, an attractive woman needs to think she is attractive as a person and not as an object. — Congau

It's ironic that back in the day when feminism was all the rage, women's clothes were comparatively more modest than they are now, at a time when much of the freedom they fought for has been achieved.

A 'man' who is so insecure and small dicked about his relationship that he thinks of women on leashes and worries about her 'looking for greener pastures' is no man, and should probably fucking hang himself. — StreetlightX

Just a thought.

Revolting? Damn. I want to move where the women who behave like you describe live. XD

What is your gender/relationship status/type of government just curious?

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

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

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

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

must lower their eyes — 3017amen

A piece of advice that came too late for me. :worry: :sad: The idea behind lowering one's eyes is to prevent eye contact, a not all too bad thing, from becoming an offensive lecherous stare.

If you would like me to start one, I will... .) — 3017amen

You need not on my account. As I think I said, I don't accept the subject/object distinction. I don't think we're spectators of the world or that there is some "us" as subjects observing other people or things as objects. The questions I asked relate to some problems I think arise from my confusion regarding your use of the words "objects" and "objectification" (or possibly your misuse of them) and not to some urge to explore other matters.

That's being concerned about his desire that a woman must attracted or interested in him. It has nothing to do with a woman's needs. Her concerns, desires and needs do not feature anywhere in this sort of thought.

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

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

But if you're scared, I understand.

:up:

A 'man' who is so insecure and small dicked about his relationship that he thinks of women on leashes and worries about her 'looking for greener pastures' is no man, and should probably fucking hang himself. — StreetlightX

:up: Lotta that going around (and on display lately by blue ballers in Blue).

I'm inclined to say that I don't understand this whole objectification thing. Sure, I can read the words about seeing another person as merely an object or denying their agency or whatnot, but I can't find any feeling or experience I might have had which would seem to match. It feels like I've never been objectified or have objectified anyone; of course, I'm sure the phenomena being referred to has occurred many times, but my point is that the common definitions and explanations of objectification all seem to be written by someone with a fundamentally different way of seeing the world and human interaction. Thus, they don't connect with me at all.

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 cuckold or the like; this tendency of men probably spills over into other freedoms a woman can have. — TheMadFool

If someone thought that, it betrays
(1) A lack of trust
(2) A lot of insecurity
(3) A willingness to constrain their partner from activities they strongly desire doing to mitigate the insecurities.

In treating someone like that, they make their insecurities their partner's problem; and not in the intimacy expanding sense of mutual exploration - it's pure confinement. Doing so will only hasten the demise of the relationship if they're lucky, or perhaps lead to traumatising the person they (allegedly) love more than anyone else.

Edit: Maybe a starting point for a discussion on monogamy as a social norm, I'll just gesture in that direction with song lyrics -

I want you, and I want you to want me to want you
But I don't need you
Don't need you to need me to need you
That's just me
So take me or leave me
But please don't need me
Don't need me to need you to need me
Cos we're here one minute, the next we're dead
So love me and leave me
But try not to need me
Enough said

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

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. — Possibility

Helpful? That depends on what question you're seeking help with. The OP seemed to be questioning the implicit hypocrisy of a 21st century liberated woman, who overtly directs the attention of her male oppressors to her distinguishing female sexual charms --- objectifying them as-if they are attractive shiny objects like jewelry. They draw attention to their lips with artificial color, mimicking the bright red bottoms of sexually receptive chimpanzees. If they have ample bosoms, they may display them with uplift brassieres or decolletage. Or if they have “hot legs” they may showcase them with short skirts or long slits. The OP assumption seemed to be that true political Feminists would dress like Lesbians, forcing the males to deal with them as equals & agents & subjects.

I'm aware that you have an aversion to making philosophical distinctions in general, but I don't. So, I'll try to distinguish between two legitimate categories of human interaction : natural sexual behavior, and cultural power hierarchies. Obviously, the two are inter-related in practice. Male mammals (e.g. chimps) typically dominate the females in their tribes, both sexually and politically. Bonobos are a rare exception, due in part to less sexual dimorphism. In my prior post though, I accused the OP of failing to distinguish between sexual and cultural objectification. The innate tendency for males to focus on the distinguishing body parts of females, rather than the person as a political agent, would never have become such a hot-button political issue, if humans had never developed a rationalized culture. Reason is analytical, not holistic, but it is motivated by feelings. So modern cultures are all about rationalizing social distinctions : sex, race, religion. Cultures can permit certain behaviors, but they can also prohibit those that are deemed harmful to society. In any case, females, as a class, have been second class citizens since the era of hunter-gatherers. Guess who got the dangerous-but-glorified jobs of warriors and hunters, while their “better halves” stayed home with babies on their hips, and cooked dinner?

Do you think Sex and Politics are functionally the same thing? That seems to be the view of 20th century Feminists. And their homogenized position was understandable, because they were primarily motivated by political injustice for women, and blamed institutionalized male sexual dominance for the prevailing inequity in sex relations. Likewise, many African-Americans tend to lump-together all racial distinctions (e.g. profiling) into one category : political injustice via negative discrimination based on race. Unfortunately, that indiscriminate categorization ignores the majority of white people who treat non-whites with respect. It was mostly high class white people, who provoked a civil war between "brothers" to end an egregious form of dehumanizing discrimination. It was also white people in power, who mandated positive distinctions (affirmative action) to rectify past negative discrimination. And the Women's Lib marchers didn't win the Vote by a direct assault on male privilege, but by appealing to the moral conscience of the men who loved them.

At a high point in human moral history, the women's empowerment movement has succeeded, to a surprising degree, in effecting political reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. But, it has still not completely erased the innate differences that cause fertile females to be sexually attracted to fickle males, and to use their feminine charms and wiles to manipulate them into committing to long-term relationships. Ironically, it seems that the most sexually attractive males are also the “bad boys” (warriors) who are more likely to use and discard women as short-term sex toys. So, the “hypocrisy” implied by the OP, is merely the human foible of trying to conform to two different standards : natural sexual relations, and cultural political relations. Sexual objectification is only as political as you make it.

Perhaps the next political solution will require all women to conceal themselves in burkas and hijabs, in order to offset the aggressive dominating cave-man sexual behavior of those testosterone-fueled males. [ simply neutering the males would leave unwanted females in a quandary ] Or maybe, women will be required by law to carry pepper spray, or to learn martial arts for self-defense of their virtue. Or, if all else fails, a knee to the groin will usually politically neutralize unwanted advances. :cool:

vive la difference : ​used to show that you think it is good that there is a difference between two people or things, especially a difference between men and women

That the thing though: there is no such hypocrisy.

Every woman could walk around naked, want to be looked at sexually, want to cause sexual attraction in any make a present. It would make no difference to what men ought to do. The men would still be wrong to touch, harrasss proposition, leer, etc., the women in question.

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

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

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

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

Again, no-brainer. Otherwise, you may want to study the history of sex, pornography, Eros, etc. etc. In that case, material agency is that which is being valued. And as such, it's being valued through the women's choice. — 3017amen

What choice? Material agency is not being valued in pornography. The object is valued by men in their own narrative, and nothing more. The woman’s choice is to have value as an object, or to not have value at all.

If she chose to objectify herself (and was fully aware of her agency), how could she be denying herself agency? — 3017amen

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

Appearing as an object does not equal objectification. Everything appears as an object. If this were equal to objectification, then simply existing and being seen would entail people correctly harassing, leering, touching, grouping, speaking of others as sexual slaves, etc. This is not true.

The men would still be wrong to touch, harrasss proposition, leer, etc., the women in question. . . . The objectification is a separate action, taken by other, in response to the presence of a person. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Of course, male boorishness is Wrong by modern democratic egalitarian standards. That's why the 16th century notion of a "Gentleman" was invoked by upper-class nobles in order to distinguish their superior morality from the uncouth crudeness of the lower classes. Apparently, it was common among commoners for men to grope, and even rape, women without permission. But the nobility was (in theory) held to a higher moral standard. In public, they deferred to their lady's whims, and postponed sex until after marriage. Nowadays, we typically refer to even lower class women as "Ladies" to indicate that they are worthy of respect.

But women in urban ghettos live among politically & economically lower-class men who don't even pretend to be Gentlemen. They accept rough treatment by their "pimp-daddies", because women's lib hasn't yet reached the inner cities. They even refer to other women as "hoes", as a sign of their submission to dominant "thugs". By contrast, some uptown "gentlemen" in male-dominated offices, while outwardly professing nobility, are still motivated by their power-position to treat subordinate women as "objects" and "hoes" --- as long as the dominated women let them get away with it. The parties to such relationships presumably don't think in political or philosophical terms of "objectification", but in practical terms of "I'm horney", or "maybe I'll get a raise or a movie role". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that "what is, is what ought to be"; but that what-ought-to-be is a never-ending quest for a moral Utopia.

Unfortunately, the gender-based consciousness-raising that began over a hundred years ago, still has a long uphill battle to change the thinking and behavior of both men and women. And a majority of people in the world remain un-enlightened by Western Christian or democratic or socialistic morality. Political Laws can enforce outward behavior, but changing hearts & minds is beyond the reach of politics. Even the Chosen People in the Old Testament were accused of all sorts of depravity and immorality. But after constant chastisement by hell-fire prophets, and enduring repeated severe punishment by their Chosen God, some elements of the masses persisted in their evil ways, up to this very day. So, yes, I make a meaningful distinction between ideal political ethics and practical popular morality.

Perhaps, in another thousand years, humanity will reach a higher general moral standard, as depicted in the egalitarian society of Star Trek. But even in that enlightened future age, the women still wear mini-skirt uniforms to differentiate the female from the male soldiers. Why? Could it be a vestigial remnant of old-fashioned Objectification? :joke:

Gentleman : a gentleman is any man of good and courteous conduct.

Thug : primarily male gang-members who flaunt their disdain for the laws and morals of polite society

Gentleman : an effeminate p*ssy-whipped white male
Thug vocabulary

PS___Internet Porn is accepted as morally socially "Wrong", even by those who enjoy "leering" at naked women. But, like illegal and immoral drugs, it is still a major money-maker in our society. Is it wrong to smoke pot? What are we going to do about it? Make war on drugs & sex, or make sure that violations from the moral norm do as little harm as possible? That's the political question.

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

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

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

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

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

Then what was her purpose and intention?

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

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

Her purpose and intention don't matter.

The objectification is coming from the actions of others. In, for example, men who are thinking she is their sexual toy becuase she has some purpose or intention.

Let's say she does a striptease. This does not mean men can leer at her. It does not mean they can wolf whistle. It does not mean it's cool for the men discuss talk about how "she has such a wonderful pussy I'd love to fuck".

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

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

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

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

Her purpose and intention don't matter. — TheWillowOfDarkness

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

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

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

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

No where did I mention other women being wrong.

Indeed, when I was talking about a woman's intention or purpose being irrelevant to instances of objectification, I was talking about ANY woman, not just the one I talked about I the example.

My postion here is exactly the opposite of what you seem to think it is: I'm saying it is fine and good for any woman to appear as they wish. That, it in this behaviour, there is no objectification. Strippers are not objectifying themselves.The objectification is in how others are responding to this behaviour or not.