An interesting tangential discussion.

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

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.

But that’s kind of the point. The process of developing a male identity seems to assume that he is an exclusive entity: an individual in opposition to other systems, striving to overcome (survive) and to dominate, either by destructive or creative means. This puts his intentions in conflict with a reality that recognises the agency of other systems in relation to his own as part of a wider relational structure.

Disregarding the agency of women in certain interactions is part of a larger cultural construct that enables some individuals or cultural groups to believe they just might ‘succeed’ in maximising autonomy, power and influence. That’s my take.

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

I actually did that once, in New York. With men rather than women. I had a conversation with a group of chipendales after I was invited to their show by a female friend. I was hid at the back, for normally no man is allowed in the audience. The boys would come onstage playing a cowboy, a firemen, these sorts of outfits, and they would end up in thong, slightly short of full frontal. The girls were hysterical, screaming and inserting banknotes in various parts of the chipendales' bodies, fighting off one another to reach out to the chipendales...

I felt uncomfortable at first and started to laugh manically. Then I had a few shots and felt better. I started to wonder about the motivations of the performers, and casually asked one after his show. Found out it's quite simple: 1) it pays some 300-400 a night, which for a 20 something is pretty good money. 2) you get to be adulated by hords of girls, and that's good ego boosting. 3) you can have sex every night if you want to. Their seductive power is totally validated every night.

So yes, he was seeking objectification for self-validation. I guess chipendales never get gloomy about "nobody likes me" -- they know they are amongst the most desirable men in the city. And I must admit they had flawless bodies.

Not every body can do it either. E.g. the bar tender in that joint wanted very badly to go onstage but was yet to convince the boss to give him a chance, so he was doing much body building and taking dance lessons, and he would watch the shows every night with stary eyes... :-)

The point is that objectification can help build up a sense of agency. The two are not mutually exclusive. In final analysis, many people would rather be desired, than not be desired.

The process of developing a male identity seems to assume that he is an exclusive entity: — Possibility

I suppose what I’m driving at is that this applies to both male and female.

I feel that the idea of objectifying is a bit too simplistic. The idea of the stare being a challenge, that it challenges the confidence you have in the role you play, or who and what you believe you are, (like the anxiety in front of the cameras), draws attention to your own authenticity. It takes great confidence, or presence of mind, to maintain the role under pressure.

It seems a bit too easy to shrug this off as being objectified. Isn’t it avoidance of some truth thrown at you? Dressing up, playing the part, the role you chose, and then the challenge who’s intention is not to question it but ends up doing just that: the self doubt, the wobbling of the ego, all induced by your own fragile sense of self. It’s so much easier to project the cause for doubt on others.

A friend said tonight only zombies will love you for your brains. sex sells. Women Obtain power through their sexual appeal. I have yet to find a man that likes me for my intelligence. The feel threatened.

Women Obtain power through their sexual appeal. — Becky

That may not be true. I guess we need to know what is meant by power.

The ability to do what you want in your own personal space is basic power. Having control of your body. Where just because you’re raped and have a kid defines your life.

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

It’s not about whether or not I can handle people being rude to me. It’s that it isn’t ok to treat people like dirt. At Walmart, you get paid to facilitate a sales transaction. So, although we can expect people to be rude in many interactions and many different jobs and we need to handle it when it does, that is not an invitation or permission to be treated like we’re less than human.

Rudeness happens. I’m not outraged by a look or a leer or a stare - that’s not objectification. If I dress to attract the male gaze, then I’ll appreciate you looking. What I won’t appreciate is you groping, or expecting anything more than the opportunity to look.

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

Tell me something: can you think of another profession that requires its employees to be treated without dignity or respect? A profession that isn’t related to women and sex? And a fetish is only dehumanising if it isn’t a request. Men make a request, and a woman willing to provide is matched to that request. It is objectification if the man or the employer doesn’t feel he needs to request it.

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

I’m not talking about you groping your wife, but about customers groping the employees.

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

It’s not about bad intentions. By narrow view of intentions, I’m talking about the doctor’s intentions or the stripper’s intentions - or did you not think they had any? Do you think a doctor wants to grab your balls? Of course not - his intention is to help people stay healthy, to contribute productively to society, to make the next payment on his yacht, to get his kids through private school, etc. If that means he has to grab your balls, then he will. It isn’t about whether a stripper feels dehumanised by letting you stare at her tits - she knows what she’s being paid for. It’s about whether she lets you grab them or any other part of her body. It’s about assuming that she really wants you to do whatever you want with her.

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

Observing, yes. Again, it’s not about the staring. Of course, if she’s trying to have a conversation with you and you’re staring at them, then she has every right to assume that you’re objectifying her, because you are probably not listening to what she’s saying. But I don’t see staring at exposed breasts in itself to be objectifying. If she’s scantily clad, she wants someone to notice. She just may not want anything more from you in particular, and you should respect that. What she’s ‘putting out there’ is a visual feast, not a sexual object to play with. Wanting attention is not the same as wanting sexual attention. So she’s allowed to say ‘go away’ if you try to hit on her. This is the distinction I’m trying to clarify.

Male revues give women a safe place to openly appreciate an impressive masculine physique and participate in fantasies without the guy expecting anything else from them. The men have their egos massaged every night, and learn the benefits of giving a woman space to make decisions for herself.

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

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.

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.

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

I fail to see how wearing what are described as sexually provocative clothes is not [self] objectification.

That said, women have full rights as to whom or what kind of man they wish to attract sexually.

It's not possible to make the point that women dressing in certain ways bespeak a hypocrisy. A man who's a body builder would surely want people to see him as more than just hypertrophied muscle. Nevertheless, being a body builder does reveal a person's worldview - what s/he values.

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

Indeed, you're right. I guess the problem of sexual objectification is owed, in part, to managing complex personalities - there's the intellectual side that contemplates such things as rights, equality, personal space, self-worth, and a whole lot more of things that make being thought of as a sex-toy abhorrent and then there's the "dark" side that would love nothing better than to turn on every guy/girl in the room as the case may be.

I was only kidding my brother! Your point about discouraging voyeurism is well taken. Love you man thanks for the thread... ! — 3017amen

:smile:

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.

:up: Telling it like it is!

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

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 - and that man may not be you. It does not follow that she wants to be treated as an object, even by the man whose attention she craves. Wanting attention is not the same as wanting sexual attention, and wanting sexual attention is not the same as wanting to be objectified.

And when a man gets a boner, any woman involved does NOT become an object, of sex or anything else - she is still a person with agency. Your boner is your responsibility, not hers.

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

I agree with Brett here. Men might stare at women as some sort of habit formed. That habit is one which is a trope of male culture in the broader culture, started somewhere in the mists of Western history or civilization itself.

I find it quite interesting because the trope is really giving the woman power not the man. He learns that staring longer is some sort of signal (if the woman notices). I'm not sure how much the magnetism of the scantily clad woman is really the case- as if it is a knee-jerk reaction that has no culturally learned component (this is where I may disagree with Brett, I don't know). There has been a sort of learned response, making it seem as if magnetism.. as if Roy Orbison's "Pretty Women" is just a "truism of nature". But perhaps not so. Anyways, If the woman notices the extra long stare, she might get an ego-boost herself. There is the power. The male provides the ego-boost, while thinking he's "getting something" from the gaze (as Brett mentioned, some sort of association with possession perhaps, even if not acted upon). Ironically, the male gives power to the female by staring. If men stopped staring those few extra seconds (or more in less nuanced males), the power of the physical signal would be diminished and even disappear. How did this even happen to begin with? Tropes is my theme here and I'm sticking to it. The culture has simply created the tropes for the two sides to use to allow physical attraction to even take place in the first place.. I am trying to move beyond evolutionary psychology as just this blunt hammer for everything related to sexual attraction and relations.

A lot of the time it's other driven. If the male is particularly groomed to be an alpha-type (assuming that's even a trope in the culture to begin with), they might think the woman will notice the extra few seconds he taking to stare, and then make the decision to make another pass his way so that he can send more signals, and she can send more signals and on and on. In other words, the lusty alpha male mentality might think themselves magnetic and charming enough (with the stare at the beginning) to "get" the woman to pay attention to him as well. Anyways, my point is that a lot of this goes beyond the simple ideas of "objectification", etc. It's a lot to do with tropes one picks up and signals one consciously or unconsciously learns from habit/culture to send.

Which brings me to another point.. What makes something physically attractive? Is it "you know it when you see it?"

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.

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

Agreed.

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

A man's sexual/intellectual/nutritional/etc. attention?

It does not follow that she wants to be treated as an object, even by the man whose attention she craves — 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.

Your boner is your responsibility, not hers. — Possibility

You can say that again! :smile:

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.

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?

Well, what definition do you suggest we all compy with? — TheMadFool

I'm fine with the one I just wrote there. It seems to be a summarization of what you're trying to say, no? But anyways, what about that definition though? What is philosophically interesting about it? I'm suggesting what's philosophically interesting is the tropes we have created around it. Read the last couple of posts to see what I'm saying. Otherwise, there's not much interesting argument. Are you asking why people feel the need to attract others? Are you asking why attraction is even a thing? Are you asking why physical attributes are attractive? How they are attractive? I think we all agree that often people make physical attributes a way to attract others.

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

Where?

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.

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.

In a way I can agree with you that if the tropes are dropped (on both sides though), then the whole phenomenon might lose all power.. it becomes a non-issue. 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.

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

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).

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

That’s right, you don’t know. There’s no more reason to assume that it already existed in people than that it is learned through mimicking and group association. I agree that it’s something we have done over time, but so is speaking.

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

Well, as I have said, I don’t believe that staring at anyone is objectification in itself. My point was not that staring at women objectifies them, nor that it indicates a lack of consideration for women. But if you involve women, and then say it has nothing to do with them, what are you implying about their involvement, except that it doesn’t bear consideration?

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

I guess what I mean is habits and norms that should then be seen as tropes, relegated to background noise and then perhaps disappear altogether (who knows what can happen if everyone dropped pretenses).

The process might look something like this:

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.

Wearing certain clothes and make-up for women also seen as a signifier 1) The woman is buying into the set norm of what looks good to others, and thus wants to present herself as following this norm, and thus showing to herself or others that she can follow this norm and exemplify it herself. 2) The woman might be showing other women she can exemplify this norm. 3) The woman might be showing men that she can exemplify this norm, possibly trying to attract them (or women for that matter) in a sexual or physically pleasing way.

Men also have norms of dress and looks that signify that they are buying into a set of norms around what counts as attractive (could be things like form-fitting shirts, showing off more muscles, following popular trends of sorts). Mainly though, males have set up the norm that they are the gazer.. the one who views in this physical realm. They were also enclturated but to mainly be the viewer.. So they formed habits from friends, society, the like of how to show appreciation and pleasure from staring at the women who is exemplifying the norm of attraction. Brett had a point where it could have started as wa way to bond with friends, or something someone picked up from a family member, or peer. Thus their norms might be something like 1) If I want to buy into the set of norms for what to do when a woman exemplifies the norm of looking a certain way to be attractive, I must stare a little longer to show my appreciation for following this norm.

The effect is usually something like 1) The women gets the ego-boost from the recognition. 2) The male gets some sort of aesthetic pleasure from the viewing, and possibly an unconscious idea of possession from the staring. Many times these are all signifiers if its for attraction so 3) The male hopes the female recognizes his appreciation and thus recognizes him 4) The female may or may not act on this appreciation depending on her level of attraction, etc.

At the end of the day, all of this can dissipate in theory if both sides just decided to not buy into the narratives. It is much harder obviously to actually do because it is so ingrained in society and habit-formation, but it could happen. Then, the power the women gets from trying to attract would not even matter... No need for the ego-boost and no need to stare longer. It can even happen if it was one-sided. If scantily clad women walked around and no one stared longer or cared or thought anything more than seeing a pebble on a beach, then women would no longer walk around scantily clad. For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, women are naked all the time..no one cares in the tribe as it is not a habit to find this anything of significance.

For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, women are naked all the time — schopenhauer1

Firstly, I feel that you're not adequately addressing the issue at hand - why are women dressing or even behaving in ways that lends itself to being treated as sex-toys? That such behavior is part of our culture doesn't resolve the inconsistency I pointed to. All that can be inferred from your stand on this is that women are dressing the way they do out of habit but the million dollar question is why did it become a part of our culture? 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.

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.

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

I believe I did answer this when describing the whole process. I stated that the very origins probably lies here:

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

Once something becomes a habit or a trope, it is often pervasive. It becomes just the "way it is". But is it? No, of course not, it was made up a long time ago in a civilization far far away. To get pop-culture here, this lyric kind of reiterates it from Bruce Hornsby:

Said, hey little boy you can't go where the others go
'Cause you don't look like they do
Said, hey old man how can you stand
To think that way
Did you really think about it
Before you made the rules?
He said, "son
That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
Ah, but don't you believe them"

I mean, granted that is about institutional racism, but still this all goes back to tropes tropes tropes. So really it was pushed by social institutions feedback to individual enculturation back to society again, making a feedback loop, as often these habits and tropes are. As I said before:

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

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. Perhaps the habit of clothes wearing, made the anything outside of public nudity transgressive. The habit of wearing clothes made diminished the original habit of being naked. So hunter-gatherers who are naked probably use other signifiers for attraction, or perhaps attraction is a different phenomena, more akin to familiarity and comfort with someone, etc. Or perhaps in some cultures, its the male peacocking behaviors and the women's gaze that counts more for what you might call "objectification".

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

All you've said is that it's become customary for women to dress in the way they do. You haven't offered me a reason why?

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

The reply to this is the question I asked above viz. why did wearing certain kinds of clothes become the norm?

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.

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

Aren't the low-neckline, exposing cleavage, and the miniskirt, exposing the thighs, just that - striptease?