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. — schopenhauer1

Agreed Schop1. That's called material agency. I believe one should rejoice in their material agency, or physical beauty. Sure there is going to be, in this case, pathology associated with anything that involves human's (as well as the pluses and minuses of being a man/woman-discriminatory behavior). We all have our cross to bear. I think you get it.

To harp on the existential angst of the human condition is what Possibility/Widow and others keep focusing on. I just don't see how one can escape objectifying the object (the double standard is alive and well). When we objectify our bodies by clinging to virtuous ideals (Eros, beauty contests, romantic love, the new born baby/object, sculpture, art, etc.), we applaud it. When we objectify the same by choosing pathology, we denounce it (as it should be).

I think, once again, this tendency to dichotomize is rearing its head. Sure, I'm dichotomizing myself ( I'd like to call it parsing) self-awareness over the inescapable world of aesthetic's, but drawing the distinctions and associated virtues/vices is the point.

We indeed have physical agency, and metaphysical agency. No Brainer. Each has its role to play.

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? — Hanover

First of all, presenting yourself in a way that causes sexual arousal in another is not necessarily permitting objectification, nor is it self-objectification. Anyone in this position can have a sense of agency, so long as they are continually aware of themselves as more than an object.

The assumption is that a woman in this position wants to be treated as an object, or that she is fully aware that she may be treated as an object - neither of which may be an accurate assessment of a woman’s agency or self-awareness. You can only ascertain this by asking her questions and listening to her answers.

@Congau was right in saying that her answers may not be accurate, but they do still give an indication of her self-awareness and/or sense of agency. Two women may work at the same strip joint, and may even perform the same act, but have completely different reasons why. Her reasons - or how they are expressed - may also change dramatically over time. The same goes for two women at a bar in short skirts and plunging necklines. One woman might be unaware of any other way to be of value to a man, and the other might be specifically looking for a casual sex partner. And you would not be able to tell which is which by looking at their legs.

I don’t believe that women choose to be treated as an object or as sub-human, even if they choose to cause sexual arousal.

But if you're scared, I understand. — 3017amen

It's true the thought of debating such old chestnuts fills me with a kind of dread. Next you'll be threatening me with quotes from Descartes. Vade retro, satana!

The way I see it, part of the issue is that people are multifaceted, but very often we only see one side of them. In a way, I objectify my doctor, because I only see him in this narrow, shallow category. So to me his only value is his ability to address my health concerns. With a stripper it’s the same thing. Her only value is her ability sexually arouse me. Now, this is completely dependent on my having no other interactions with them. If I knew either person personally, my perspective would change. I would be aware of their personality, interests, etc. so that they would not appear shallow. Also, if I go to a strip club, and that club does not expressly state that I cannot grope, leer, etc., then wouldn’t that lead me to believe that those actions are acceptable? And as a stripper, wouldn’t that mean the same thing? That men are allowed to perform those behaviors?

Ha! Embrace your fears!! (Where's Poetic Universe when you need him... .) Or better yet, maybe some Freudian-speak would pass muster here... !

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

Possibility-To acquire economic and/or social value.

Let's test your argument using your words and logic:

If I objectify myself, it will add economic/social value
To add economic/social value, I can be a stripper
Therefore, if I objectify myself, I can be a stripper

Is that a valid argument? If not, please revise to make those propositions sound. Otherwise, it appears that stripping (objectification) was a means to obtain economic/social value.

Your first premise is incohrent.

If she chooses to partake in displaying a sexy dance for others, it is not an act of objectification. Others are meant to see and enjoy the dance. In the respect, it is not dehumanizing but rather the opposite: she affirming her own agency and will in doing the sexy dance and being seen doing it. (in this context, rhe act of stipping would only be dehumanising if she was something againist her wishes as a sexual being. This happens plenty too--i.e. cocerion to strip, either out of economic concerns or social pressure from bosses-- but this is a different situation and is an objectfiction of the social syestem or the person coercing her to strip against her will ).

Objectification isn't about obtaining economic or social value. It's about the relationship of an individual's agency and will to how others treat them.

The way I see it, part of the issue is that people are multifaceted, but very often we only see one side of them. In a way, I objectify my doctor, because I only see him in this narrow, shallow category. So to me his only value is his ability to address my health concerns. With a stripper it’s the same thing. Her only value is her ability sexually arouse me. Now, this is completely dependent on my having no other interactions with them. If I knew either person personally, my perspective would change. I would be aware of their personality, interests, etc. so that they would not appear shallow. Also, if I go to a strip club, and that club does not expressly state that I cannot grope, leer, etc., then wouldn’t that lead me to believe that those actions are acceptable? And as a stripper, wouldn’t that mean the same thing? That men are allowed to perform those behaviors? — Pinprick

So, all actions are permissible unless explicitly stated? Do I need to set the ground rules for every interaction, or can I simply expect you to treat me as a human being, given that I am a human being? Should a sign stating “We will not tolerate groping or leering” be placed at every coffee shop entrance, too? Does it need to be placed at the entrance to a doctor’s office? Or is the sign necessary only if the doctor is female?

I understand what you’re trying to say, but objectification is not a narrow view of purpose - it’s a narrow view of intention. It isn’t just that his only value is to address your health concerns, it’s that he is otherwise subject to your will.

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. — schopenhauer1

Absolutely. It is possible to value someone for their appearance without treating them as if they exist purely for your aesthetic appreciation or physical use, and have no other intentions.

@3017amen is trying to distinguish between a material or physical ‘agency’ and a metaphysical one, as if an object has agency. Aesthetic appreciation is not a denial of agency, but it is not a ‘different kind’ of agency, either.

Likewise, it is possible for a woman to be scantily clad or even naked, be physically attractive, and expect you to recognise her agency, metaphysical or otherwise - to treat her not as if she chose to be your pretty plaything, but as if she is here for her own reasons, the consequence of which is that you get to appreciate her beauty and movement for your own reasons.

Absolutely. It is possible to value someone for their appearance without treating them as if they exist purely for your aesthetic appreciation or physical use, and have no other intentions. — Possibility

Yeah.. I agree I guess. I don't see the problem.

I think the way TMF phrased it leaves this kind of a moot point. I really don't understand the debate, honestly. However, I can think of way more interesting ways that the phenomenal experience of attraction causes problems. Purely looking at phenomenal/social experiences:

What is physical attraction anyways? Is it cultural or universal? In other words, can people be taught to find what was originally considered not attractive to be attractive with enough time and cultural cues?

Why is it seen that squishy parts are considered pleasing in some areas but not in others? Is evolutionary biology too reductionist and "just so"?

These are all more interesting than the OP because the OP assumes a lot of things like a) what is attractive is universal b) being partially or fully naked means objectification is taking place. Both may be false. Why start with these assumptions? This is just taking what is culturally (or pop-culturally) given and then running with it, which is jumping past the philosophically interesting parts...

Do you think it’s true, as I have read over the last decade, that there are more women than ever, which doesn’t mean it’s a lot, of different racial groups who strive to look like western women, to the point of having surgery done on their face and removing certain features? This would seem to indicate an ideal look. If true then what was once cultural is now subverted by a homogenous look perpetuated by the apparent success and happiness of western women. Just what is the “ look” of western women suggesting.

I think, once again, this tendency to dichotomize is rearing its head. Sure, I'm dichotomizing myself ( I'd like to call it parsing) self-awareness over the inescapable world of aesthetic's, but drawing the distinctions and associated virtues/vices is the point. — 3017amen

I think we are assuming too much on aesthetics. It's more about keeping up with the Jones's perhaps? As I said to Possibility:

I think the way TMF phrased it leaves this kind of a moot point. I really don't understand the debate, honestly. However, I can think of way more interesting ways that the phenomenal experience of attraction causes problems. Purely looking at phenomenal/social experiences:

What is physical attraction anyways? Is it cultural or universal? In other words, can people be taught to find what was originally considered not attractive to be attractive with enough time and cultural cues?

Why is it seen that squishy parts are considered pleasing in some areas but not in others? Is evolutionary biology too reductionist and "just so"?

These are all more interesting than the OP because the OP assumes a lot of things like a) what is attractive is universal b) being partially or fully naked means objectification is taking place. Both may be false. Why start with these assumptions? This is just taking what is culturally (or pop-culturally) given and then running with it, which is jumping past the philosophically interesting parts... — schopenhauer1

In other words.. we may buy too much in the narrative of our own cultural practices of what is physically deemed attractive.

It's too easy to buy into "just-so" theories of physical attraction. Let's say we all valued what many think are ugly? Is it universal or cultural? Perhaps it has been cultural all the way but we then analogize through cultural cues made up some time by the Greeks or the Middle Age Romantics, or by pop-science's tendency to overgeneralize the human experience to other animals.. I don't know.. This could be totally wrong too but I'm just throwing out ideas to shake us out of the mindset that big breasts, slender waist, slightly bigger hips, ample buttocks, symmetrical face with certain proportioned features are what are indeed universally pleasing and attractive. Maybe it is.. but maybe we can't even get out of the whole scheme itself if it was indeed cultural because it's too ingrained.. Maybe it's taken as a given physiologically/biologically when indeed it was cultural all along.. maybe a combination of both..

It's hard to play objective detective with our own species being so culturally driven (enculturated).

This would seem to indicate an ideal look. If true then what was once cultural is now subverted by a homogenous look perpetuated by the apparent success and happiness of western women. Just what is the “ look” of western women suggesting. — Brett

Well, interesting ideas.. That's what I'm getting with my posts to Possibility and 3027amen.. How much of this is cultural.. and how much of it is due to very ingrained cultural ideas (stuck in there somewhere back in time...)?

Someone mentioned roles and subjectiviites, I think it was @fdrake. Perhaps people early on are playing roles.. The male who takes an extra few seconds to stare at a scantily clad woman walking down the street is playing the role of a male who is supposed to take an extra few seconds to stare at a scantily clad woman down the street.. The origin has been lost in time.. both in broader culture and that person's actual biographic life as to when they picked up on this cue.. Pop-culture says that staring came during puberty.. I don't know.. It could be that the cultural cue is that during puberty you are supposed to start looking harder at certain physical cues (like the scantily clad woman). It is all so intermixed, one couldn't even parse out the cues from the actual "biology" and then one misattributes it to biology.

The male who takes an extra few seconds to stare at a scantily clad woman walking down the street is playing the role of a male who is supposed to take an extra few seconds to stare at a scantily clad woman down the street.. The origin has been lost in time.. both in broader culture and that person's actual biographic life as to when they picked up on this cue.. Pop-culture says that staring came during puberty.. — schopenhauer1

It probably does develop during puberty. And puberty is a confusing period. Many men still stare without, I suspect, any understanding of why they do it. Initially it may have helped in bonding with other male friends. I suspect that not many men stare when they’re alone like they do when they’re with other males.

Many men still stare without, I suspect, any understanding of why they do it. Initially it may have helped in bonding with other male friends. I suspect that not many men stare when they’re alone like they do when they’re with other males. — Brett

Yep, but you bring up the point.. the habit of a few seconds of staring that started to bond with male friends becomes just the habit of staring a few extra seconds. The point is the mystery of its real origins. Pragmatically, one can argue that the outcome is to bring the person to a state of habits of being attracted or even habits of attraction. It's oddly very behaviorist if looked at in this regard.

I have to say that there have been moments when crossing a busy street at a crossing and there are three lanes of traffic waiting, halfway across the street I almost forget how to walk naturally, thinking all eyes of the drivers waiting are on me. Because I’m concentrating so much on “walking naturally” I don’t look up to see if they are actually watching me. It’s the idea of the staring that does it to me. So there is something perceived as very powerful in the stare, even imagined, of others that affects us.

The point is the mystery of its real origins. — schopenhauer1

It’s possible that starring is primitive way of possessing.

I have to say that there have been moments when crossing a busy street at a crossing and there are three lanes of traffic waiting, halfway across the street I almost forget how to walk naturally, thinking all eyes of the drivers waiting are on me. Because I’m concentrating so much on “walking naturally” I don’t look up to see if they are actually watching me. It’s the idea of the staring that does it to me. So there is something perceived as very powerful in the stare, even imagined, of others that affects us. — Brett

Yeah very interesting point.. The gaze and what one wants to present and signal to others and be signalled by others.. It's all playing roles.

An interesting point about staring or the gaze is having your photo taken. Most people feel some anxiety. Some manage a practised pose but others go to pieces. It’s like a challenge to the idea of yourself, or as you suggest, the role you imagine you successfully present to the world.

It’s possible that starring is primitive way of possessing. — Brett

But going along the theme of habits.. this itself would be habit one formed at some point. This habit of possessing through staring is itself a role, something that is played out that one learned or picked up or is considered an expectation of some sort.. Again, just proposing some ideas here other than "this is biological".. scantily clad X female means X male stares.. but is that just some cultural thing picked up? It's almost the most pop-cultural of pop-cultural tropes.. I think of a ZZ Top music video or something :lol:.

An interesting point about staring or the gaze is having your photo taken. Most people feel some anxiety. Some manage a practised pose but others go to pieces. It’s like a challenge to the idea of yourself, or as you suggest, the role you imagine you successfully present to the world. — Brett

Yes, because one usually may not think of how one poses for others.. but photos make it the very thing one must focus on. How do you present yourself for the other? How is one being perceived? It becomes another role. One is natural when one is not hyper-aware of how one looks for the other, but rather is in the moment.

This habit of possessing through staring is itself a role, — schopenhauer1

I might just walk back a bit on the primitive way of possessing.

It’s possible that being stared at challenges my subjective confidence in what and who I am. It’s a challenge of sorts. In adolescent, that period of confusion and insecurity, staring reverses that, don’t you think, it challenges the world to dare challenge me. Most staring seems to be done by men, and in the beginning it’s done at girls, not so often older women. It’s an easy way to build up a fragile ego or sense of self.

If you’ve ever been up close to two men just before they fight, the staring is incredibly fierce and concentrated.

It’s possible that being stared at challenges my subjective confidence in what and who I am. It’s a challenge of sorts. In adolescent, that period of confusion and insecurity, staring reverses that, don’t you think, it challenges the world to dare challenge me. Most staring seems to be done by men, and in the beginning it’s done at girls, not so often older women. It’s an easy way to build up a fragile ego or sense of self. — Brett

It could be. It's playing a role or sending signals or both. In a society where one believes in alpha males, and that alpha males "get the girl" then if one wants to be an alpha male and get the girl one sends the signal by staring or "possessing" as you stated. Similarly, if one believes in alpha males, and alpha males "win the fight" then if one wants to be an alpha male and win the fight, one sends signal by staring. It's ironic that we analyze this as if it is natural rather than roles and signals one picks up in broader ideas in society.

This does suggest that women might be the unintended victims of role playing, that it’s not about them personally, or even as females.

It's ironic that we analyze this as if it is natural rather than roles and signals. — schopenhauer1

When would roles and signals not be natural? Unless culture has warped them so much that their origins are no longer clear, or that culture has created alternative meanings as a way to explain current norms, or to fit ideological hopes. Like if men stopped staring at women relationships between the two would be improved, when in fact it has very little to do with women.

When would roles and signals not be natural? — Brett

Well, natural in terms of biological.. instinct rather than cultural.

Unless culture has warped them so much that their origins are no longer clear, or that culture has created alternative meanings as a way to explain current norms, or to fit ideological hopes. Like if men stopped staring at women relationships between the two would be improved, when in fact it has very little to do with women. — Brett

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but the way I interpret it, you are saying that the male is just playing the role of the one who must stare at the woman, rather than someone who instinctually stares at the woman.

I’m thinking that the males stares at males and females. The staring is used in many different ways, but what lies behind it is not always clear. I’ve had instances on the street when there’s been potential trouble and one of the protagonists will turn to me and demand, “What are you starring at!” Once again it’s like a challenge from me, even though it was not my intention,

The staring is a role males are involved with and women are among those, but not the only ones, he stares at.

Edit: by the time he’s a mature male he no longer knows why he stares at women.

The staring is a role males are involved with and women are among those, but not the only ones, he stares at.

Edit: by the time he’s a mature male he no longer knows why he stares at women. — Brett

Yep. That makes sense. It's a weird combination of social cues and the intertwining in personal narrative and habit formation.

So, all actions are permissible unless explicitly stated? — Possibility

I think that has to be the assumption, right? Of course, laws have to be included in all of this. But if I work at Walmart, for example, I should assume that the customers are allowed to do anything that isn’t illegal or against company policy. Therefore, a certain level of rudeness, for example, should be expected. If I can’t handle people being rude to me, maybe I shouldn’t take the job. That doesn’t make it ok to be rude, but it’s the business owner’s right to tolerate, and expect it’s employees to tolerate, certain behaviors. And it’s my responsibility, as an employee, to do so.

Do I need to set the ground rules for every interaction, or can I simply expect you to treat me as a human being, given that I am a human being? — Possibility

Well, what that means is different for different people. Besides, their are some professions that basically do require it’s employees be treated without dignity or respect at times. Consider brothels, or a bunny ranch, where males have fetish requests that the female is expected to provide. Some fetishes can be very dehumanizing.

Should a sign stating “We will not tolerate groping or leering” be placed at every coffee shop entrance, too? Does it need to be placed at the entrance to a doctor’s office? Or is the sign necessary only if the doctor is female? — Possibility

I think you can apply some common sense to these situations. Unwanted groping is illegal, but can I grope my wife in a coffee shop if I want to? It probably will depend on how the owner feels about it. But regardless, signs of this sort only make sense in certain locations; those where the employee/customer interactions present the risk of those actions occurring.

I understand what you’re trying to say, but objectification is not a narrow view of purpose - it’s a narrow view of intention. It isn’t just that his only value is to address your health concerns, it’s that he is otherwise subject to your will. — Possibility

Not sure I understand what you mean. Intent only matters if acted upon, right? I’m guessing you mean that I shouldn’t have “bad intentions” when interacting with someone? But what exactly are bad intentions? Trying to get him to do what I want? For example, I don’t really care if the doctor finds it dehumanizing to have to give me a prostate exam. If I need one, it’s his job to fulfill my heath needs. Just like I don’t care if the stripper finds it dehumanizing for me to stare/leer at her tits. If that’s what arouses me, it’s her job to fulfill that need.

Now, the situation is different if we are just two strangers who pass on the street. In these interactions, there is no responsibility towards each other. And again, anything illegal is obviously considered wrong to do. But consider this scenario. I see a scantily clad woman. I have no way of knowing what her intentions or reasons for dressing this way are. However, I assume that it’s because she wants to draw attention to herself. So I stare at her. If my assumption of her intentions is correct, she will have no issue, but if I’m wrong she will. But how can I rightfully be blamed for assuming incorrectly? In both instances I’m objectifying her, but in the one case the objectification is welcomed. So objectifying can’t be wrong in an absolute sense. The suggestion that I ask before assuming seems ridiculous. “Excuse me, mam, I noticed your breasts are hanging out of your shirt. Would it be alright if I stared at them?” Even the women that want this to happen wouldn’t admit it, and those who don’t would be just as offended by my question as the act. It’s a catch-22 situation. The only way around this that I see is for only women who want sexual attention from males to dress scantily. Dressing a certain way is never permission for being touched, but exposing body parts in public seems to invite observing.