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
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
But if you're scared, I understand. — 3017amen
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
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. — Possibility
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 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
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
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
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
The point is the mystery of its real origins. — schopenhauer1
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
It’s possible that starring is primitive way of possessing. — Brett
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
This habit of possessing through staring is itself a role, — schopenhauer1
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'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? — Brett
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
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
So, all actions are permissible unless explicitly stated? — Possibility
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
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 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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.