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

Do you think it is a matter of fact, and not a matter of perception in relation to a culture? How extraordinary it seems to me that you should suggest it! When i was a lad, it was considered an outrageous obscenity that the Beatles grew their hair so long it covered their ears. Like girls!

I find this thread a sad disappointment by its mere existence, never mind the content. Why is it always the woman whose dress is questionable? Always subject to the moral scrutiny of every spotty teen or middle aged paunch that cares to venture to lay down the criteria of appropriate femininity. That is objectification of women; this is objectification of women!

Do you think it is a matter of fact, and not a matter of perception in relation to a culture? How extraordinary it seems to me that you should suggest it! — unenlightened

Well, it is a fact about perception: women perceive it as part of their femininity to dress in a men-pleasing manner. That's the issue isn't it?

Why is it always the woman whose dress is questionable? — unenlightened

If there were any other categories that dressed in ways inconsistent with their beliefs then it should show up here. Men and children don't dress in ways that defeat their views about themselves.

women perceive themselves — TheMadFool

You speak for women do you?

You speak for women do you? — unenlightened

To be honest, I don't but this isn't rocket science - anyone with a decent head on his shoulders can see what women's clothing these days add up to. Connect the dots and you get the image of women dressing up to be something they've spent a whole lot of time and effort rejecting as part of their identity.

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? — TheMadFool

But I did.. Again..

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. — schopenhauer1

I not only gave a reason for why society started it but three reasons why women would participate in the tropes. I also mentioned how it's a two way street and the reasons why men also participate in it. The sign is only significant when there is someone who interprets it and acts accordingly. Males take the information and make something out of it, making it significant. What else do you want? That is a reason why on both accounts. I also mentioned how the whole thing would disappear if one party thought it wasn't significant anymore.

Connect the dots and you get the image of women dressing up to be something they've spent a whole lot of time and effort rejecting as part of their identity. — TheMadFool

What are they dressing up as that they've spent time and effort rejecting? ( He asks, pretending for no good reason that women always dress the same way.)

I not only gave a reason for why society started it but three reasons why women would participate in the tropes. I also mentioned how it's a two way street and the reasons why men also participate in it. The sign is only significant when there is someone who interprets it and acts accordingly. Males take the information and make something out of it, making it significant. What else do you want? That is a reason why on both accounts. — schopenhauer1

I also mentioned how the whole thing would disappear if one party thought it wasn't significant anymore. — Schopenhauer1

Which side, men/women, would call the shots in deciding that this particular trope had run its course and now needs to be put in the scrapheap?

What are they dressing up as that they've spent time and effort rejecting? ( He asks, pretending for no good reason that women always dress the same way.) — unenlightened

As sex-objects.

There’s no more reason to assume that it already existed in people than that it is learned through mimicking and group association. — Possibility

Don’t you think that something has to exist and to exist must have had some meaning to exist before it was mimicked or learned? How could you mimic something in a vacuum?

I have another question, which probably should be addressed to . When talking about the the apparent contradiction in women who dress to attract attention (if that really is what they’re doing) but object to being treated as objects are we talking about these two ideas existing in the one woman, or are we talking about two types that in no way relate to each other.

Secondly, objectification is, I’m assuming, part of feminist theory. What exactly is the feelings that come about through “objectification”? Is it feeling “uncomfortable” or anxious or what? What exactly is it? Is it something that only women can feel and then only some women? Is it possible that the feeling is no different than the feeling I had crossing the road in front of the cars that caused my sense of self, the role I assumed, to stumble.

I also don’t think bringing strippers into the argument helps anyone. As soon as a transaction takes place, in this case money, all bets are off. Nor do I think it’s only “scantily clad” women that are stared at. Nor do I think the men who lean out car windows yelling at girls are the same as men who might idly look at a passing women, That might just be a difference of maturity or upbringing. It’s not so simple is it? Not that I’m suggesting you were saying so.

People refered to strippers deliberately to both show how sexual display is not equivalent to objectification but how men take it to be. Strippers are people too. They have their own agency and different range of sexual activities they are comfortable with or not.

The point many men do not recognise this, including several in this thread, such that the women are treated as nothing more than an object to fulfil a sexual purpose, rather than being recognised for the people and professionals they are. The following is a perfect example of this:

As soon as a transaction takes place, in this case money, all bets are off. — “brett”

This is not true. To strip it not an agreement to any kind of sexual activity or desire. Some strippers may in fact insist people do not stare with a specific tone. Just as they might insist not to be touched, spoken about in certain ways, photographed, etc., an exchange of money does not take away the question of what activity someone else is comfortable with.

Even an act being specifically mentioned in a contract doesn’t change this. Maybe a strip club holds a policy that men can stare however they want, but this doesn’t alter what an individual dancer is comfortable with. Men (and the strip club) taking she must be subject to any stare is objectification, for it denies who she is supposed be sexually without reference to her own agency and wishes.

If we recognise the dancer as a person, with agency and wishes, we would know that not even a contract, including one we are paying for, would entail that she must be subject to any stare. We would recognise respecting her as a person and performer entails being aware of the sexual relation she is comfortable with. We would choose not to stare in ways she found uncomfortable because her well-being is important to us, and we recognise the interaction as an event of mutual agency.

Nor do I think it’s only “scantily clad” women that are stared at. Nor do I think the men who lean out car windows yelling at girls are the same as men who might idly look at a passing women, That might just be a difference of maturity or upbringing. It’s not so simple is it? Not that I’m suggesting you were saying so. — “brett”

Indeed. The point is, however, that all those men have something in common: they think of the woman as thing which must give them their sexual satisfaction, they all objectify her. They do not understand the woman to be here own person, who gets to choose whether to be involved in a sexual interaction or activity.

What are they dressing up as that they've spent time and effort rejecting?
— unenlightened

As sex-objects. — TheMadFool

Are you saying that a woman who wants sex wants to be objectified? That a woman who wants to excite a man wants to be treated as a sex object?

The following is a perfect example of this:

As soon as a transaction takes place, in this case money, all bets are off.
— “brett” — TheWillowOfDarkness

What I meant by that statement is that the transactions turns the act and the watching into entertainment. Not that it is now legitimate. It's not clear anymore what she's doing and why the women is stripping. She may be stripping because she is starving or hoping to feed her children. We can't tell because she's now playing to the fantasy of the male. So I find it an unreliable example of the whole business of objectification. It's no longer real in any sense and is instead a contrived and manipulated situation.

The point is, however, that all those men have something in common: they think of the woman as thing which must give them their sexual sexual satisfaction, they all objectify her. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't believe this is true. It's too easy to generalise to prove a point.

It's necessary, to support the theory of objectification, that the stare, or gaze, is always sexual.

We would recognise respecting her as a person and performer entails being aware of the sexual relation she is comfortable with. We would choose not to stare in ways she found uncomfortable because her well-being is important to us, and we recognise the interaction as an event of mutual agency. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A stripper whom nobody stares at will soon feel uncomfortable.

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

Of course it’s a tease. So what?

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

Attention:

1. Notice taken of someone or something; the regarding of someone or something as interesting or important.
The mental faculty of considering or taking notice of someone or something.

2. the action of dealing with or taking special care of someone or something.
Things done to express interest in or please someone.

You know that a man is paying attention to you when his eyes are looking in your direction. It is really that simple. You could be saying something clever or witty, but if his eyes are focused somewhere else, then he’s not attributing any value or interest in his experience to you. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.

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

A woman’s cleavage is not a display of ‘goods’ or ‘merchandise’. She is not a product. It’s not about what men want, it’s about what men notice. If she wants a man to notice her in a crowd and consider getting to know her as a person, how do you propose she get his attention? By walking up to him in a burka and starting a conversation? Depending on the situation, it can be difficult to find a balance between noticeable and looking for a fuck, and when you continually find yourself barely worth so much as a nod of acknowledgement, then it can feel oddly validating to be noticed for a change, even in polite conversation.

But it should NOT be assumed that a woman who shows her cleavage wants anything more than to not be invisible to men. If you respond to this display by acknowledging her as a thinking, feeling person who makes her own choices, then you have her attention. She needs to hear that you noticed her before she let the girls out, or she needs you to be honest and apologise that you didn’t. She needs to hear that she has other qualities besides her boobs, qualities that, as a man, you might consider interesting or important. Sometimes she just needs to hear that you don’t want to assume she’s suggesting anything by what she’s wearing. And if you do or say anything other than these in response to what she’s wearing, then you are part of the problem. Sorry.

Are you saying that a woman who wants sex wants to be objectified? That a woman who wants to excite a man wants to be treated as a sex object? — unenlightened

Yes. Certain clothes accentuate sexuality and wearing them is a deliberate act of presenting the wearer in an erotic light and that, in my humble opinion, has consequences viz. being seen only as a means to satisfaction of carnal urges.

in my humble opinion, has consequences viz. being seen only as a means to satisfaction of carnal urges. — TheMadFool

Nothing humble about that opinion. Do you apply it to yourself? Do you objectify yourself whenever you try and attract a sexual partner? Or are you just an ordinary male chauvinist?

Nothing humble about that opinion. Do you apply it to yourself? Do you objectify yourself whenever you try and attract a sexual partner? Or are you just an ordinary male chauvinist? — unenlightened

Let me be clear, I'm not a male chauvinist at all. That out of the way, I'd like to ask you a simple question: what is it that's being revealed by wearing revealing clothes and what is the purpose of revealing that which is being revealed?

what is it that's being revealed by wearing revealing clothes and what is the purpose of revealing that which is being revealed? — TheMadFool

I know what’s being revealed but I don’t know why.

But consider this; other things, physical, are being revealed at the same time that you would not regard as sexual.

I know what’s being revealed but I don’t know why. — Brett

Put 2 and 2 together is my advice.

Put 2 and 2 together is my advice. — TheMadFool

That’s a surprising statement on a philosophy forum. How can you know the thoughts or feelings, and more, of another person?

It’s entirely possible, and more than likely happens often, that a women revealing parts of her body to a man isn’t about enticing him but ridiculing him; like saying to her friend; “watch this.”

That’s a surprising statement on a philosophy forum. How can you know the thoughts or feelings, and more, of another person? — Brett

Are you implying there's some other as yet unknown reason behind dressing revealingly? :chin: What could it be I wonder.

I'd like to ask you a simple question: what is it that's being revealed by wearing revealing clothes and what is the purpose of revealing that which is being revealed? — TheMadFool

All else being equal, it is being revealed that the woman in question wants to look attractive to one or more men. Rather like when a man wears a suit, he wants to look respectable, masculine, important and possibly, attractive to women.

So now explain why any of this amounts to objectification.

“Watch his tongue hanging out”.

It’s entirely possible, and more than likely happens often, that a women revealing parts of her body to a man isn’t about enticing him but ridiculing him. — Brett

So a woman is ridiculing a man by belittling herself? Something doesn't add up.

by belittling herself? — TheMadFool

This is a problem. That’s your idea if it,

So a woman is ridiculing a man by belittling herself? Something doesn't add up. — TheMadFool

It doesn't add up that being attractive is belittling oneself.

But , you don’t even have to be attractive. That’s another problem.