Strippers are not objectifying themselves.Th — TheWillowOfDarkness

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

What exactly is the point meant to be here? My comment about strippers was about what it true when there are strippers. I was using it as an example to describe how even actions or intentions we might consider most provocative do not amount to objectification.

I'm not sure why you are speaking of contracts here. Contracts aren't invoved in relations of objectification or not. Indeed, they are utterly irrelevant to sexual behaviour or relations of any kind. One cannot contract their ability to refuse sexual activity or object to lewd comments away.

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

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

Yes, you are not getting something.

When a stripper chooses to give you a sexy dance, chooses to make you feel attraction and sexual pleasure, it is not permission for anything else. It does not mean it is okay to talk about how nice the stripper would be to fuck with your friends. It does not mean it is okay to grope. It may not even mean it is okay to leer (after all, there are different tones of looking). Permission to see and enjoy the sexy dance is not an okay to anything else.

And to think otherwise is objectification (entirely from you!) , for it is to take the stripper in question beyond the bounds of what they chosen to do, give you a sexy dance, and insist they must also be or do all these other sexual things to you(despite the stripper having not chosen to partake in those at all).

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

Nothing from a contract, but the ethical obligation not to treat people like they are one's possessions. You don't do that shit becuase it's harmful to others. You aren't respecting their sexual boundries.

Even (Or maybe even especially, given their proximity to sexual interest) strippers.

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

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

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

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

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. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's the woman who chooses the clothes, it's the woman purchasing the clothes, it's the woman who dons the clothes, it's the woman who has a motive in all of the above.

If they were implying some scatological sexual interest, sure.

Smell? Unlikely, restrooms are supposed to be shitted in and be stinky. It's not harmful in the same way. Someone pointing out you shits are stinking and annoying isn't turning you into a sexual object. Nor is having stinky shits turning anyone else into are sexual object.

The stripper is not responsible for the monstrous reactions of objectfiction from anyone watching. Watchers have a responsibility to understand her as person and respect her sexual boundaries (yes, even as she is stripping for them). They must respect she is not just an object for them to use and absue however they want.

For wearing the clothes, yes.

This is not the objectification.

The objectification is in the actions of others, the leers, the a lot whistles, th3 comments, etc. any of which were chosen by the objectfier.

Hey TMF, try to be a little more discreet with your creepy peeping-tom activities :rofl: :joke: — 3017amen

After much thoughtful consideration, I've come to the unhappy conclusion that I'm creepy alright but somehow I never got down to being a peeping tom. Strange. Thanks for the light-hearted comment though. Much appreciated. :smile:

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

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

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

Of course it is...

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

But it doesn't. Women get this shit all the time, not just when their stripping. This doesn't happen because women so one particular thing or another, it happens because then men in question don't respect women as people. The door is always open because men take a woman's mere existence to be a sexual object.

Neither, he should recognise those other players have violated their ethical obligations, if the comments in question are specifically harmful for one reason or another. And that the others should be admonished and possibly sanctioned for failing un their reposiblities to others (this is why sports have code of conduct regarding sledging, racial vilification, etc.).

Just because jerks will be jerks so and monsters will be monsters does not make thise actions just "The way the world works."

Just because jerks will be jerks so and monsters will be monsters does not make thise actions just "The way the world works." — TheWillowOfDarkness

In a modern society the two terms blend into irrelevance. You have criminals and law abiding citizens albeit some foul mouthed. Unwanted touching is assault. Simple as that. As a denizen of this world you are partly responsible for 'how it works' and acknowledging humanity as a flawed species that requires teaching and occasional punishment to function in a proper society is the key.

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

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

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

I find it uncomfortable as well. Sex without genuine connection seems to me like masturbating with someone else's body. You pretend to care so that you can use someone else.

And to know that another person doesn't care about you beyond your appearance, and to be okay with that, makes it sound like you don't really care about yourself. — darthbarracuda

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

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

My point wasn't that all men do this, but that some do. Objectification isn't limited to women who act "provocatively." These men will do it to any woman. Choosing not to be a stripper isn't a solution to the problem.

Nor was I talking about marrying for a piece of ass. Being attracted to someone ass and then forming a relationship with them, marrying them, etc. is perfectly fine. A great ass is a fine reason to be attracted to someone. As is being a sexual relationship. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be in a relationship because you like how a person looks or the sex you have with them. Neither of those are objectification.

I wasn't talking about freedom either. My point was about how the men objectifying understand women and how this constitutes a material social relation. One might suppose people are free to speak however they want. Objectification would still be objectification. The men in question would still be responsible for doing it. I'm not talking about some fantasy land in which no men objectify or even proposing this is likely to happen. It's only that men are responsible for these actions. Women don't get objectified because they exist and are attractive. Some men choose to understand they are their property for one sexual exploit or another. (obviously, I think these ought not happen too, but this is a seperate question to how the objectification occurs).

Correct and that value is associated with her physical beauty that she chooses to put on display. So she has objectified herself, no? — 3017amen

No.

Seriously, if she is physically beautiful, she should not have to hide her beauty in order to be treated as a human being. And if she chooses to display her beauty in order to accumulate sufficient value to enable her to make choices for herself, then she is still a human being - it does not entitle anyone to treat her as an object, as someone with no choice in what happens to her. That some men will treat her as an object is not something she needs to just take with the job.

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

Of course it is... — 3017amen

No, it isn’t. A star football player signed up to play football - he’s paid (a disproportionate amount, mind you) for his ability with certain skills and techniques as much as his fitness and agility, and a star player is also respected for this, even raised to ‘god-like’ status, much more than he is vilified for failing to deliver. But the idea that being subject to hate and personal attacks should be accepted as ‘part of the job’ - any job - is disgraceful in itself. It’s not something that any human being should accept as part of their job. Here in Australia, we’ve had to address the issue of racially motivated slurs and personal attacks on star football players. It is not part of the job - he should be able to do his job without being treated as less than human.

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

Then what was her purpose and intention? — 3017amen

To acquire economic and/or social value.

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. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:up:

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

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

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

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

To acquire economic and/or social value. — Possibility

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

(The objectification was a means to an end.)

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 think you have to get at the phenomenal experience itself. What about wearing scantily clad clothing makes a person have the status of being "objectified" automatically?

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

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

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

Indeed Schop1 ! And the phenomenal experience is the physical attractiveness (or unattractiveness) of the object itself. — 3017amen

The definition TMF gave was about dehumanization and disavowing the humanity of others. So I saw others speak of agency here. So if I guess we say that to not objectify is recognize their agency, and to objectify is to not recognize their agency, can't someone be scantily clad, be physically attractive, and still see their agency? I don't see the problem.

And if she chooses to display her beauty in order to accumulate sufficient value to enable her to make choices for herself, then she is still a human being - it does not entitle anyone to treat her as an object, as someone with no choice in what happens to her. That some men will treat her as an object is not something she needs to just take with the job. — Possibility

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

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

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

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. — Congau

Agreed. But we’re not talking about a psychologist who knows his patient, or even a lay person who knows the person. We’re talking about someone making unqualified assumptions about why one woman is wearing high-heeled shoes based on external observations and a prevailing cultural reality.

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

FWIW, I disagree that a psychologist would disregard her answer altogether. There is always a reason why she gives a particular answer - even if it isn’t accurate - it provides information about what she values, fears and ignores. But that’s getting off topic...

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. — Congau

Again, we’re not referring to an answer to a question so much as how that woman is treated or judged as a result of assumptions that may be inaccurate. If you’re aware that the answer you’ve assumed may not be accurate, and that this woman may in fact have a range of reasons why she wears clothing you perceive as ‘sexy’, that’s very different to disregarding her answer altogether.

But the idea that being subject to hate and personal attacks should be accepted as ‘part of the job’ - any job - is disgraceful in itself. It’s not something that any human being should accept as part of their job. Here in Australia, we’ve had to address the issue of racially motivated slurs and personal attacks on star football players. It is not part of the job - he should be able to do his job without being treated as less than human. — Possibility

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

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

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

Seriously, if she is physically beautiful, she should not have to hide her beauty in order to be treated as a human being. And if she chooses to display her beauty in order to accumulate sufficient value to enable her to make choices for herself, then she is still a human being - it does not entitle anyone to treat her as an object, as someone with no choice in what happens to her. That some men will treat her as an object is not something she needs to just take with the job. — Possibility

I don't follow this. If the job description is that you will present yourself as an object for men, then that is just something you have to take with the job. If you don't like that job description, then you just don't take the job.

I think it's clear that the job description for the stripper is that you're going to be asked to present yourself as an object for sexual arousal where you'll be expected to gyrate in front of men so that they can see your body as you move about. I'm not judging the decision to accept that job, but that is in fact the job. It's also sometimes the job of the stripper to provide lap dances where the gyration leads to direct physical arousal. I agree completely that no woman is required to be treated as an object, but there are certain jobs where the woman is asked to do exactly that, which means she can choose to take that job or leave it.

Why can't someone hire a woman to be treated as an object if that is what they both want? Doesn't the woman have the right to contract to be leered at, groped, and treated as sub-human if that's what she wants?