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. — Brett
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. — unenlightened
On the surface this appears to be such a tiresome OP, the subject itself, but it’s not, it’s a very interesting subject, if you jump off the cliff. — Brett
Yet, showing skin to attract men seems too close for comfort to using the body as bait and isn't that what sexual objectification means? — TheMadFool
Objectification is the sense that I am ONLY valued for my appearance and/or capacity to fulfil your needs. That my failure to deliver on either count would invalidate my existence, because nothing else about me matters. — Possibility
Objectification is the sense that I am ONLY valued for my appearance and/or capacity to fulfil your needs. That my failure to deliver on either count would invalidate my existence, because nothing else about me matters.
— Possibility
No argument there, if that was purely the case, if that’s what all looking was about?
But I don’t think you’ve explained what objectification is as an experience. — Brett
I assume that women who pose naked for artists are completely comfortable in themselves.
I had a friend who was asked to pose for a painter. It was her first time. She said the experience was initially so powerful that she couldn’t remember how to move her hand or arm naturally when asked. She lost control of her sense of self.
I don’t think of that as objectification. It’s an internal schism of some sort but it’s doesn’t seem to be that she’d become what he was looking at. It’s really some kind of existential moment for her, like “Who the hell am I?”. — Brett
People who pose naked for artists are choosing the experience of being looked at aesthetically, which is not the same as being looked at as an object. — Possibility
It’s likely she did become what he was looking at, — Possibility
Why would a woman let a man define who she is? And through only a look? — Brett
I don’t think its always possible to tell the difference. — Brett
Who said anything about defining? — Possibility
Objectification is the sense that I am ONLY valued for my appearance and/or capacity to fulfil your needs. — Possibility
Is the experience not 'having one's existence invalidated'? — unenlightened
True, but I think a woman who is prepared to be a nude artist’s model but not a playboy model can tell the difference. — Possibility
No that’s not what I was inferring. I was suggesting, as you say, that not all staring is objectification. Though it may be that some women may think that every man is looking at her in the same way. There may be reasons for her thinking that, but for some of those men they are not the reason, despite her feelings. — Brett
True, but I think a woman who is prepared to be a nude artist’s model but not a playboy model can tell the difference.
— Possibility
Playboy models having low self esteem presumably, or just stupid. That’s an unfair assumption, don’t you think? It sort of plays into the hands of objectification, like she’s too stupid to understand what she’s doing, or she knowingly makes her decisions and gets what she deserves. — Brett
That’s not what I was saying. She did not become what he was looking at. She wondered exactly who she was. — Brett
It seems that to dress to emphasize one's sexuality doesn't necessarily imply that a woman is saying yes to sexual objectification per se. Indeed a case can be made that a woman in a low neckline top and a miniskirt is presenting herself as sexually desirable for these items of clothing are designed to tantalize men by half-exposing those parts of a woman's body that have arousal value for men. Does this in itself bespeak a desire by women to give men the impression that they're little more than living sex-toys? I'm afraid not. As one poster indicated to me sexual objectification (of women) means to value women only for their body and what it can do for men's sexual appetites. Women, when dressed provocatively, could be making the statement that she has the goods men crave but that these goods are only the side dish in a full course meal that she as a person is all about. Not necessary that women's dresses imply that they endorse men trying to reduce them to sex objects. That said, I have this sneaking suspicion that some women do in fact see themselves as all sex appeal and nothing else and, unfortunately, they dress in identical fashion to those women who just want to strut their stuff as perks of a relationship with them. — TheMadFool
And using sexually charged language such as ‘dressed provocatively’ and ‘goods men crave’ is hardly presenting an objective view. — Possibility
I’m conscious that exposing these parts of my body has arousal value for men, but frankly, I’m not going to hide my sexuality just because you might be inconvenienced with a boner. Not my problem. — 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.