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. — Brett
The assumption is that a woman [working in a strip joint] 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. — Possibility
The process of developing a male identity seems to assume that he is an exclusive entity: — 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. — Pinprick
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. — Pinprick
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. — Pinprick
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. — Pinprick
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. — Pinprick
I agree that most constitute an unspoken cultural reality that has been learned through mimicking and group association, and that much of the reason why men stare at women has very little to do with (ie. consideration for) the women themselves. — Possibility
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. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The way I see it, part of the issue is that people are multifaceted, but very often we only see one side of them. — Pinprick
I was only kidding my brother! Your point about discouraging voyeurism is well taken. Love you man thanks for the thread... ! — 3017amen
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? — schopenhauer1
Well, why does a woman wear revealing attire? To arouse, turn-on, men, no? When men get a boner, women become objects [of sex], right? That's what I mean. — TheMadFool
I think for the most part, we are unaware of why we do most things that we do ‘naturally’. I agree that most constitute an unspoken cultural reality that has been learned through mimicking and group association, and that much of the reason why men stare at women has very little to do with (ie. consideration for) the women themselves. — Possibility
Secondly you inserted (consideration for) in the sentence about the reason men stare at women. That changes my meaning. It’s not that the staring has very little to do with consideration for women, and therefore objectifying them, because that suggests they are purposely doing it to indicate a lack of consideration for women when in fact it means the stare has very little to do with women. The women are caught up in something that exists apart from them. — Brett
Indeed, it's a fair transaction. But the point is that being an object of desire is sometimes a boost to one's agency, rather always necessarily undermining it. — Olivier5
No. I feel like I’m going around in circles here, but a woman wearing revealing attire is not necessarily doing so to arouse or turn men on in general. It could be simply to get a man’s attention — Possibility
It does not follow that she wants to be treated as an object, even by the man whose attention she craves — Possibility
Your boner is your responsibility, not hers. — Possibility
Indeed, that doesn't follow because a woman may just want to display her goods in a manner of speaking without wanting to actually sell them to anyone but the fact that she's spreading out her merchandise for men to see suggests that women, let's just say, know what men want. — TheMadFool
I thin it's going around in circles because you need to get a handle on what "objectification" means here. You and Possibility are both correct if your definition is "To display one's physical attributes to get other's attention, mainly for purposes of attraction, sometimes for a particular person, but often times with unintended consequences from others". That is your definition.. what about it makes it philosophically interesting? I'm trying to say one way is the tropes we have created culturally to even make that a phenomena. I'm also trying to move beyond evolutionary psychology or psuedo-scientific explanations for both what counts as attractive and habits of attraction or being attracted to someone. — schopenhauer1
Well, what definition do you suggest we all compy with? — TheMadFool
I'm fine with the one I just wrote there — schopenhauer1
I thin it's going around in circles because you need to get a handle on what "objectification" means here. You and Possibility are both correct if your definition is "To display one's physical attributes to get other's attention, mainly for purposes of attraction, sometimes for a particular person, but often times with unintended consequences from others". That is your definition.. what about it makes it philosophically interesting? I'm trying to say one way is the tropes we have created culturally to even make that a phenomena. I'm also trying to move beyond evolutionary psychology or psuedo-scientific explanations for both what counts as attractive and habits of attraction or being attracted to someone. — schopenhauer1
What is philosophically interesting about it? — schopenhauer1
That there's an fundamental inconsistency lurking in how women think of themselves - as not objects [of sex] AND as objects [of sex]. It undermines women's position on the issue of equality with men - they want not to be treated as chattel but there they are, dressing, behaving, as chattel might if the were to come alive. — TheMadFool
Ok, that goes back to the tropes. Both sexes are buying into it. The woman is buying into it by trying to be attractive with physical attributes. The man is buying into it by finding it attractive. So perhaps that answers the questions.. buying into tropes. — schopenhauer1
I just reread this and realised that you are agreeing with something I didn’t say.
When you say “learned through mimicking and group association” it suggests something people were introduced to or taught. But in fact I mean it already existed in people, that it’s something we have done over time. It might be that it’s a male thing and that there were very good reasons for it, I don’t know. — Brett
Secondly you inserted (consideration for) in the sentence about the reason men stare at women. That changes my meaning. It’s not that the staring has very little to do with consideration for women, and therefore objectifying them, because that suggests they are purposely doing it to indicate a lack of consideration for women when in fact it means the stare has very little to do with women. The women are caught up in something that exists apart from them. — Brett
What is the problem with tropes? Does something being a trope disqualify it from philosophical discussions right off the bat?
The idea behind a trope is simply that something is repeated to the point of it losing appeal for the audience. That's more a psychological problem of people than that the trope is inherently uninteresting. Repeating something over and over again makes that thing a trope and uninteresting but this loss of interest in the trope is not because it doesn't have meaningful and thought-provoking content but because it's heard or talked about so often that the mind relegates it to background noise (my theory). — TheMadFool
For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, women are naked all the time — schopenhauer1
What reason lies behind dressing in revealing clothes transforming from a novel idea (in the beginning) to a custom? Why has sexually enticing clothing become, as you assert, a trope. — TheMadFool
Society needs a way to manage sexual relations such that the species continues doing what it does (mainly procreating senselessly but that's a different issue). Habits of attraction form to move this along (pretty clunkily as we aren't as cut-and-dry like many other animals). So we have acceptable norms around what is considered attractive. Apparently showing ample cleavage, slightly larger hips, clear-of-blemished face, with a hint of color, shadow and and lining around the eyes to make it stand out, hair done in certain styles, and showing off a larger buttocks (but not too large) region is set as the norm in many places. This has been instilled since youth, and has been internalized by the signs and patterns that she has been shown from larger society, family, friends, institutions, historical contingency, media, and the like. — schopenhauer1
Why we perpetuate the tropes in the first place is probably because cultural cues tell us that this is an important aspect of the social order. People then internalize this social cue to feel an ego-boost from it, etc. It becomes a feedback loop of the individual and society, like many social institutions. For example, society needs hard workers, we encultrate people to feel they need to work hard, people get a sense of pride from working hard, and then society gets its hard workers. — schopenhauer1
Secondly, regarding your comment on the nakedness of hunter-gatherer women, think of why women (and men too) began wearing clothes. Clothes serve to protect the wearer from the elements but also, once humans made the transition to civilization, to protect modesty. — TheMadFool
I believe I did answer this when describing the whole process. I stated that the very origins probably lies here — schopenhauer1
tropes tropes tropes. — schopenhauer1
So we have acceptable norms around what is considered attractive. — schopenhauer1
This has been instilled since youth, and has been internalized by the signs and patterns that she has been shown from larger society, family, friends, institutions, historical contingency, media, and the like. — schopenhauer1
But look at what caused what. Modesty happened after the switch to clothes for protection, meaning it was a derivative social phenomenon from the original reason. — schopenhauer1
There is an etiquette to being an artists' model. One undresses behind a screen, because as has been alluded to, it is the tease of the strip not the nakedness that is exciting. The screen humanises what would otherwise be a process of objectification as it does also at the doctor's. This might be hard to appreciate if one has not done it.
Not all nakedness is sexual, and not all sexuality is objectification. Slavery is objectification, but the play of domination and submission is not - because it is a game. — unenlightened
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.