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

There are people in this thread who continue to define objectification as inclusive of aesthetic evaluation, but I disagree with this. It is NOT the sense that I am valued for my appearance and/or capacity to fulfil your needs. 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. I imagine anyone subject to slavery conditions might feel this way.

Objectification is not just a feeling, though - it’s an action. It is what someone does when they deny agency - when they treat a person or animal as an object. Any interaction with an object is according to its appearance and functionality in relation to the subject. An object is not a participant in the interaction - it is ‘caught up’ in something that often exists apart from it, and it merely serves a function or point of focus. An object exists for the sake of the subject and the action. Objectification is what happens when someone kicks a dog in anger, or refers to a woman’s sexuality as ‘merchandise’, or assumes that because a woman shows a bit of thigh that she’s open for business, or assumes that by agreeing to sex she’s agreeing to be his plaything.

But I think that some women can feel objectified without anyone specifically objectifying her. This is a case where she has internalised an experience of repeated objectification - this is self-objectification. But self-objectification is not necessarily what a stripper or porn star does - there are many strippers and porn stars who derive a sense of agency from their work. Self-objectification is what women do when they starve themselves to look like models, when they get a boob job to please a man, or when they fuck for validation. It is a reduction of self-value to appearance and/or capacity to fulfil another’s needs.

You can’t assume self-objectification by observing behaviour, anymore than a woman can assume objectification from a stare. It is as much about one’s intentions as about words and actions. It’s fuzzy and uncertain, but we clarify by avoiding assumptions, and by speaking and listening to one another as human beings. Funnily enough, the solution to both objectification and self-objectification is for men to validate women for more than their appearance and or capacity to meet a man’s needs. It is difficult for feminists to admit that the solution lies with the actions and attitudes of men - they’re more inclined to just complain about what you ARE doing - but it’s true. Every interaction you have with women should endeavour to reflect your understanding of the woman’s capacity to choose for herself. When you do that, your relationship with women will improve, and you will give women space to be more than they thought they could be.

FWIW, if more men appreciated the risk a woman takes to get their attention and endeavoured to treat all genuine attempts with respect, then they may be surprised to find more intelligent, self-respecting women among them. Likewise, if more women appreciated the courage it takes for a man to initiate a conversation, and endeavoured to treat all genuine attempts with decency, then they may be surprised to find more decent guys among them. Just a thought.

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

I agree that the attention sought by dressing in certain ways is particular as in some men of interest and not general as in all men. 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?

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.

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

:rofl:

Wear revealing clothes

Well women spend a lot of time trying to arouse the interest of men, who generally prefer to get drunk and watch football, or play with their train-sets, because women are so much more highly sexed than men. In my youth I always dressed like a tramp so as not to have to beat them off with a stick, but nowadays I just have to remember not to smile.

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

No.

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.

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?”.

Heartbreaker.

Why would a woman let a man define who she is? And through only a look?

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

Is the experience not 'having one's existence invalidated'? (Man repeats what she just said so it sounds more important.)

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

I don’t think of that as objectification, either. 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. The artist is not objectifying her - if so, the artwork would look like a primary school drawing, and she would have felt quite different about the experience. An artist’s eye doesn’t see objects. The gaze is very different - it relates the model to their surroundings in a way that dissolves all object boundaries. There is only space and shape and line. I’m not surprised she lost control of her sense of self. It’s likely she did become what he was looking at, but it’s similar to women who choose to strip only in that she chooses where and when and most importantly HOW to be looked at.

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

I don’t think its always possible to tell the difference.

It’s likely she did become what he was looking at, — Possibility

That’s not what I was saying. She did not become what he was looking at. She wondered exactly who she was.

Why would a woman let a man define who she is? And through only a look? — Brett

Who said anything about defining? I’m talking about value. And I don’t believe anyone can assume objectification from a look (I’ve already said that). Willow and myself have very different views - the fact that we’re both female doesn’t mean that we think the same.

I don’t think its always possible to tell the difference. — 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.

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

That’s a definition to me.

I was assuming the context was refering to cases in question were men were learing from sexual interest. My postion is certainly not that any look equaled objectification. All staring is not even objectification.

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.

Is the experience not 'having one's existence invalidated'? — unenlightened

I can’t get my head around that. Can you explain it a bit more?

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.

No — unenlightened

What does sexual objectification mean then?

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

I agree with this, and said as much.

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

Read what I wrote again. I’m referring to her distinguishing between two different gazes, and being able to choose one and not the other. A woman who chooses to be a playboy model and not an artist’s model - or demands different pay rates - can also tell the difference.

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.

That’s not what I was saying. She did not become what he was looking at. She wondered exactly who she was. — Brett

I’m only suggesting that she recognised a lack of boundary to the self - what he was looking at was an undefined relation to the universe. You don’t think there was a connection?

I admire your friend’s capacity to participate in the interaction. Her account shows a confidence and comfort with herself that women should aspire to, in my opinion.

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

I happen to have an ample chest but I’m not very tall, and I have a short waist. Most high neckline tops make me look like my breasts are hanging around my waistline instead of where I think they’re supposed to be. At work I usually wear a scarf with as low a neckline as I can respectably get away with - not because it might tantalise men, but because it makes me look more in proportion. If I wear a skirt, it’s either floor length or halfway up the thigh, because any other length makes my legs look disproportionately short. At work I usually wear pants, because it’s the most practical option. But when I go out, I like to wear a dress. They usually have low necklines and expose the thigh - not because it tantalises men, but because I feel attractive to ME. 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.

And using sexually charged language such as ‘dressed provocatively’ and ‘goods men crave’ is hardly presenting an objective view.

And using sexually charged language such as ‘dressed provocatively’ and ‘goods men crave’ is hardly presenting an objective view. — Possibility

More an example of objectification than a discussion. Women (or bits thereof) as goods? A meat market.

There is an argument, to which I personally do not subscribe, that all sexual relations are objectifications. That is, the best that can be hoped for is that partners consensually and mutually use each other as objects for their own gratification, and willingly become objects for the other's gratification. It's a way of looking at things, but I would say that the mutuality contradicts the objectification.

Good sex is animalistic, and I think objectification during sex is entirely natural and fine. After sex, if you're going to carry on a relation with that person, you're probably going to want to start treating them as a reasonable person again. Or maybe not. I don't know, it's up to that relationship, but I remember Kant viewed humanity or dignity as tied to our capacity for reason and if you have a partner who you view as incapable or bad at reason it's gonna be hard for the relationship if not totally impossible. You'd basically have to constantly manage them.

@Possibility

Regarding your reply to me, it seems I misunderstood you. As a result, we probably agree more than we disagree. However, I wanted to explain that the issue I have with women who complain about men objectifying them is when their complaint is not warranted, as in the case of staring; or when they pretend to act so naive that they’re shocked that their attire draws unwanted attention. I think women of that sort need to own up to the responsibility/consequences of their choice of attire. Basically, if you don’t want to be viewed as a piece of meat, then don’t present yourself as such. Just like if I don’t want people thinking I’m poor, I shouldn’t dress like a hobo.

Also,

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

Agreed, but any issue I have would be regarding how you react to flirting, gazing, “compliments,” or other non-criminal actions that you receive from men as a result of this choice of attire. Also, to a certain extent, this is similar to walking around with a cart full of food in a village full of hungry people. You shouldn’t be surprised if most people ask for some food, or if some try to steal it from you. Not that stealing is in anyway an acceptable act, just that it’s to be expected.

Also, just a general question/comment. If objectification is thinking of someone as an object, then, strictly speaking it is a thought. Whereas if it is treating someone as an object, strictly speaking it is an action. So me objectifying someone in thought in private while I masturbate, for example, is permissible, but masturbating in front of someone without their permission, a la Louis CK, is not. Agree?

Sex as economics.