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. — Possibility

Very interesting post. Obviously a lot more going on than men would understand. I don’t disagree with much of what you’ve said. I would also agree with you, or others, who have noted the type of language being used here to try and explain their thoughts or perceptions. It does suggest an inability to get past a particular way of looking at things and in some ways stifles the OP.

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

I think I may have misinterpreted your post here. Do you mean that she became something more than she was because of the nature of the relationship between them, which was created by the way he, the artist, was looking at here?

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. — unenlightened

I’m with you here.

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. — BitconnectCarlos

Animalistic is not objectification. An animal can still be regarded as having agency - still capable of making choices and having preferences, in this case during sex. Otherwise I agree with you. What you’re saying is related to relationships that extend beyond the sexual act, but we weren’t really going there in this thread.

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. — Pinprick

I agree, and have said as much, that some women will self-objectify and then project. Self-objectification has been found to be a direct result of repeated experiences of objectification. In this sense, they have internalised objectification, and expecting them to own up to the consequences of their choice doesn’t really work if they’re not aware of making that choice for themselves.

I have also suggested that the solution to this is for men to stop objectifying women, full stop. Dressing in a miniskirt and low-cut top is NOT presenting herself as a piece of meat - YOU are interpreting it that way, because all you see is breasts and legs, not the person they are attached to. Regardless of why she dresses that way, you don’t have permission to treat her as a piece of meat. Likewise, if I think that wearing slouchies is dressing like a hobo, that’s my problem, not yours. I don’t get to treat you like a hobo just because you dress like I think a hobo dresses. These are people - talk to them.

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. — 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. — Pinprick

Personally, I’m not offended by men flirting, gazing or complimenting me on aesthetic appeal, but I will object to assumptions that my choice of attire is for their benefit - that I’m ‘walking around with a cart full of food’ as if to say “look at all this food I have that you don’t”. I happen to be a sexual being - that should not be interpreted as an affront to you, and I should not be expected to hide it because it’s something YOU want. If you ask for some food and I have it, I would happily share, but my body and my sexual identity is NOT food, it is ME.

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? — Pinprick

Well, I’m not going to tell you what to do in private, but as a woman I don’t appreciate being thought of as an object at all. I’d prefer you to think of me as a whole person, because that’s what I am. Drawing a line between when and where it is permissible to objectify a person defeats the purpose. Change your thinking, and it flows into actions.

This is probably a bit tangential but I wonder why or when certain body parts became associated with sexual attraction, etc. I doubt hunter-gatherers think twice about any of this.. This is why I said earlier that this is very much cultural tropes we picked up from civilization many years back and are now sort amplifying this echo-chamber of "what makes something attractive". It's interesting, because I really don't want to go down the route of evolutionary psychology to answer this. I think we can maintain social construction theory and it would still work. Evolutionary psychology is fraught with "just so" theories, projections, retrojections, false analogies to other animals, people's biases, etc. It is almost a non-starter. You have theories of symmetry, and some experiments but it is too late for controls and comparisons by the time people have already been enculturated, one would think. I'm sure someone can come up with a handful of anthropological studies, but I don't know..

This is probably a bit tangential but I wonder why or when certain body parts became associated with sexual attraction, etc. — schopenhauer1

And some no longer. The cultural ideas of beauty or attraction among different people in Africa, particularly women, in the form of a high band a of rings around the neck and throat, the disc in the bottom lip, the tattooing and incisions in the skin, they seem to be slowly disappearing. No longer relevant, or replaced by something else, and if so by what?

No longer relevant, or replaced by something else, and if so what? — Brett

It's just that.. why or when did this happen? It's kind of like "When did humans develop X, Y, Z notion". It's just something to ponder or try to understand. We may never know exactly how bread was invented/discovered, but we can probably reconstruct theories. But the point is, if it is a social construction, then that means it mutable, changeable, just like some of the traditions you are mentioning have changed.

Very interesting post. Obviously a lot more going on than men would understand. I don’t disagree with much of what you’ve said. I would also agree with you, or others, who have noted the type of language being used here to try and explain their thoughts or perceptions. It does suggest an inability to get past a particular way of looking at things and in some ways stifles the OP. — Brett

Thank you.

I think I may have misinterpreted your post here. Do you mean that she became something more than she was because of the nature of the relationship between them, which was created by the way he, the artist, was looking at here? — Brett

She already is something more. By relating to his gaze - letting go of her physical self-identity - it seems she was able to consciously relate to the world in a different, more fundamental way. For me, it shows that she identifies herself with a metaphysical existence - as more than just a physical being.

Well I think it’s interesting about the African women, assuming I’m correct, because this change has come about in our lifetime. So it’s possible to connect the dots a little.

So, a gaze that gives instead of taking. And it’s not lost on me that it’s taking place in a creative act.

So, a gaze that gives instead of taking. And it’s not lost on me that it’s taking place in a creative act. — Brett

Not instead of taking - what you’ve described seems to me a mutual collaboration, in that there is give and take on both sides, with consent, for the duration of the act.

Your first premise is incohrent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sorry for the delay. I was with my lady friend and we were enjoying objectifying ourselves this weekend, and appreciating our mutual attraction (aesthetic appreciation) to, and for, our material agency/agencies :blush:

I provided a definition list so that you could make coherent or sound propositions out of your ( & ) arguments.

Here's a syllogism that you can parse, if you care to (Some A are B. All A are C. Therefore, some C are B):

Some women/men are strippers.
All women/men are objects.
Therefore, some objects are strippers.

Now, I took the liberty to research common definitions relating to these concepts; try to use a logico- deductive argument with the following definitions in order to make your case:


Objectify:

1. to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.

2. express (something abstract) in a concrete form.

3. to give expression to (something, such as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.

4. : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality

Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Eros: love is the physical, sensual intimacy between man, woman, husband/wife, human's... . It expresses sexual, romantic attraction. Eros is also the name of the mythological Greek god of love, sexual desire, physical attraction, and physical love. This love passion was described through an elaborate metaphoric and mythological schema involving "love's arrows" or "love darts", the source of which was often the personified figure of Eros (or his Latin counterpart, Cupid), or another deity (such as Rumor. At times the source of the arrows was said to be the image of the beautiful love object itself.

Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/) : is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). Aesthetics covers both natural and artificial sources of aesthetic experience and judgment. It considers what happens in our minds when we engage with aesthetic objects… .


Physical v. Meta-physical: The differences between having to do with the body and the material world, and the study of the ultimate nature of existence and the universe.

Objectification isn't about obtaining economic or social value. It's about the relationship of an individual's agency and will to how others treat them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not what Possibility suggested. She suggested stripper's engage in such activity to obtain economic and social value.

If you wish to underscore the dysfunctional/pathological aspect of Objectification, you may do so; no exceptions taken. However, you must make the distinction between material agency and mental agency.

That's what I'm getting with my posts to Possibility and 3027amen.. How much of this is cultural.. and how much of it is due to very ingrained cultural ideas (stuck in there somewhere back in time...)? — schopenhauer1

It's not cultural, as much as it's Existential. You should know better Schop1 :yikes:

How can we escape the world of aesthetic experiences?

It's not cultural, as much as it's Existential. You should know better Schop1 :yikes:

How can we escape the world of aesthetic experiences? — 3017amen

Well, I don't necessarily buy into Schop's or Plato's idea that beauty is some non-material Platonic ideal that is sussed out when presented with art/nature. I think a lot of its origins is cultural-based as to what counts as beauty.

I will say Schop's idea of Will is more dead on to what is going on. Much of human relations is out of boredom. What is loneliness but boredom directed at the absence of other people (rather than a more interesting activity or other experiential phenomena)? Showing skin, having the hip-to-waist ratio, cleavage, plump, but not fat butt, etc. It's so easy to fall into "just so" evolutionary psychology reasons people appreciate these aspects. They do indeed correspond with sexual dimorphism (these are charactersitics that are not typically male, but only female), but again, it's the attraction to these aspects that is the mystery. Is it that it is the "other"? Or is it perhaps more culturally ingrained?

Perhaps in an odd Freudian idea.. The sexual libido learns by society what is proper to associate one's desires for. As I stated earlier, society needs sexual relations to function a certain way and regulated to make procreation happen. Sexual attraction may be all a part of this narrative. What is actually society pushing people along (i.e. during puberty you should have these strong desires rather than they really are manifest.. in other words the hormones though they are a factor are not the actual telos-directedness which is actually triggered by society saying what the hormones should be aiming for..etc.). So perhaps this kind of attraction or beauty is much more cultural than we think.

Perhaps I am totally wrong though, and it's all evolution all the way down.. Humans are not so cut-and-dry. Bats can fly and we can fly but one's origination has nothing to do with the other. Animals have behaviors and so do we, but the mechanism for how behaviors manifest in a social-linguistic world that we create (in other words social construction), is so far removed from innate behaviors of other animals, that it seems to be misapplied attributions to what similar mechanisms to other animals that would indeed not be the case, but only appears so because we so want an answer for our own behaviors and their origins and the analogy to the animal world coupled with evolutionary theory provides a convenient "just so" theory.

How can we escape the world of aesthetic experiences? — 3017amen

Let's consider the question. Is it a question which assumes there are things called "aesthetic experiences" we can act towards, accept or avoid in some manner? We, and everything else, and even our experiences, are part of the same world. There's no "escape."

Now, if you're asking how we "escape" from (presumably avoid)--objectifying people--

First, we define "objectifying" and "object." Naturally, if we define them as you do, by assuming that everything is an object or "presents" as an object (what a peculiarly sexual way of putting it--an object rendering itself available for us to...?) we come to the completely unsurprising conclusion that--we can't!! Q.E.D.

What more is there to debate?

Regardless of why she dresses that way, you don’t have permission to treat her as a piece of meat. Likewise, if I think that wearing slouchies is dressing like a hobo, that’s my problem, not yours. I don’t get to treat you like a hobo just because you dress like I think a hobo dresses. These are people - talk to them. — Possibility

Sure, but presumably one dresses a certain way because they want people to perceive them accordingly. This isn’t an absolute rule, of course. People could have limited options, or simply not care about others perceptions of them, etc. So it seems that making certain assumptions based on someone’s appearance is warranted. You assume the person in the police uniform is a police officer, and treat him accordingly. The fact of the matter is that perspective is a two way street. My judgements and assumptions about people are what they are partly due to how they present themselves. Do I have my own biases, agendas, and discriminations? Of course. But that doesn’t mean that my assessment of you is strictly my problem. Some women present themselves in hyper-sexualized ways, because that is precisely what they are offering; sex. Regarding communication, could you give an example of how one is supposed to have this type of conversation without offending the person whose appearance is being judged? I can’t seem to think of a way to ask someone if they’re homeless, a prostitute, etc. without doing so.

Personally, I’m not offended by men flirting, gazing or complimenting me on aesthetic appeal, but I will object to assumptions that my choice of attire is for their benefit - that I’m ‘walking around with a cart full of food’ as if to say “look at all this food I have that you don’t”. — Possibility

Good for you, but some (most?) women are. That’s not the way I intended the analogy, though. It’s more about you having something others desire, openly displaying your possession of it, and being offended/shocked by people calling attention to that fact (which it seems doesn’t apply to you).

I happen to be a sexual being - that should not be interpreted as an affront to you, and I should not be expected to hide it because it’s something YOU want. If you ask for some food and I have it, I would happily share, but my body and my sexual identity is NOT food, it is ME. — Possibility

That’s fine, as long as I’m not expected to not pursue something I want. And the issue here is that are men not made to feel ashamed or morally corrupt by doing so? Even just asking or “complimenting” can result in shaming, or even violence (slapping). Also, can you explain what you mean by your “sexual identity?” Do you mean whether you’re heterosexual or LBGTQ? If so, I’m not seeing how that’s relevant. I assume your body would appeal to both heterosexual males, and lesbians alike. So it’s not that you choosing to wear more conservative clothing somehow limits your ability to express your sexual identity. I don’t think you can always determine one’s sexual identity strictly by their appearance.

Well, I’m not going to tell you what to do in private, but as a woman I don’t appreciate being thought of as an object at all. I’d prefer you to think of me as a whole person, because that’s what I am. — Possibility

This is perfectly reasonable too. But I would suggest that you present yourself as a whole person if that’s how you want to be judged. And I’m not implying that you, personally, don’t, but more generally to all women.

But I would suggest that you present yourself as a whole person if that’s how you want to be judged. — Pinprick

There's that word "present" again. Present yourself appropriately if you wish to be judged as a "whole person" is the admonishment made. If you don't do so, well then expect to be considered something other than a whole whole person. You're just asking for that.

It's an unworthy way to absolve oneself from responsibility for one's own thoughts and conduct.

Well, I don't necessarily buy into Schop's or Plato's idea that beauty is some non-material Platonic ideal that is sussed out when presented with art/nature. I think a lot of its origins is cultural-based as to what counts as beauty. — schopenhauer1

It's not a dichotomization, of course. Plato did just that though, by, in paraphrase, introducing the idea of 'inner beauty' in this case. Then the arguments/metaphors follow, like; the beauty of mathematics, the beauty of truth, the beauty of the mind/inner beauty, etc..

Similarly

but again, it's the attraction to these aspects that is the mystery. Is it that it is the "other"? Or is it perhaps more culturally ingrained? — schopenhauer1

Of course I don't think it's cultural. Using the cognitive science example of the attachment-theory, it's an innate feature of consciousness (I.E., Baby sees mom, mom leaves baby, baby cries.) Same when a new-born comes out of the womb. Everyone say's how beautiful it is (the object itself), without any 'real' Platonic inner beauty/intellectual connection.

So perhaps this kind of attraction or beauty is much more cultural than we think. — schopenhauer1

Nope, don't believe so. I don't think rubrics have any bearing on sexual attraction in human's. The Eros phenomenon is alive and well. I suppose in theory, if we were brains in a jar perhaps we would make distinctions between brain-size, shape, and other aesthetic features of same. But in principle, all we would have there is the Platonic inner-beauty to work with... .

The sexual libido learns by society what is proper to associate one's desires for. As I stated earlier, society needs sexual relations to function a certain way and regulated to make procreation happen. Sexual attraction may be all a part of this narrative — schopenhauer1

Existentially, the rubrics of society has very little impact. You would have to explain why human's masturbate. Alternatively, one would have to explain why people are born with either homosexual or heterosexual tendencies. But in either case, what you have is a something that's intrinsic and innate viz the need to procreate (masturbation) along with the physical object which is the desired means to an end, (at least initially-love at first sight, infatuation, etc.).

Perhaps I am totally wrong though, and it's all evolution all the way down.. — schopenhauer1

I think that's where some of the reality exists. Only in that its innate to the species. Otherwise one would have to explain how sexual attraction evolved both physically and metaphysically. In other words, with some exceptions of course, there is a stick and a hole, along with some Platonic realm and other cognitive phenomena at work (Love). And I don't think either one of those have really changed much, meaning, as self-aware conscious beings, cognitive science has taken us all the way up to the theory of Love, which is where the mystery ends... .

What more is there to debate? — Ciceronianus the White

Not exatcly sure what you are asking CW, but there seems like there are two components then:

The aesthetical experience, and the non-aesthetical experience, right?

Wanting attention is not the same as wanting sexual attention, and wanting sexual attention is not the same as wanting to be objectified. — Possibility

The males and females in this thread seem to have different feelings about Objectification. For men, it's intended as a complement. A wolf-whistle is a rude & crude way of complimenting an attractive woman on her sex appeal. And some self-confident women seem to accept such boorish behavior as a positive ego-boosting comment. But for many women, objectification by an unknown male could be perceived as an implicit threat, or a sign of dominance. The "helpful" distinction you make in your post is exactly the same as the one in my first post : Sexual versus Political objectification. [ Note added ]

The history of that instinctive gender distinction is clear : in most cultures, unattached women (unmarried or without children) have all-too-often been considered "fair game" by predatory males. Women have been raped and otherwise abused, when they had no husbands or family to protect them. That's why rape, by conquering armies, has been so common. Most "nice young men", in their own society, would not think of raping a woman. But the anonymity of war, and the absence of male protectors, allows them to commit unconscionable acts of violence ("booty", in ancient times; "war crimes", in enlightened modern political parlance).

The Sociobiology explanation for such "antisocial" behavior is that sexual aggression & political competitiveness are innate to the male genetic inheritance. That amoral scientific assessment was unfairly criticized for dismissing overt male dominance as merely a case of "boys will be boys". A Biblcal explanation is that all such "evil" tendencies are an inheritance from the "fall" of Adam & Eve. A self-serving interpretation of innate evil is that a raped woman got what she deserved. But Continental and Postmodern philosophers typically deny the notions of Human Nature and Original Sin. Instead, they blame most of the evils of the world on Human Culture, with the implication that an inclusive Socialist government could rectify the errors of previous male-dominant Capitalist political systems. Unfortunately, we have only a few examples (e.g. Sweden) of such egalitarian societies.

The June 2020 issue of National Geographic magazine has an article on the sad state of women in politics. In a Democracy Index table of of male/female representation in government, the United States was merely average, and Sweden was judged most gender democratic. Ironically, the former socialist republic of Russia lagged far behind. Moreover, even when quotas for women in politics are mandated by law, as in Afghanistan, the women are still dominated by men, and dismissed by women. One female Aghani parliamentarian lamented : "the problem was that the main decision-makers in this society are men, not women; even if we become politicians, the first and last word is said by a man".

So, it seems that the ideal of an egalitarian society, where women are respected as "agents" rather than used as "objects", remains a future fantasy. On the brighter side though, we can take some comfort from the documented fact*1 that humanity has made measurable moral progress, including Women's Rights, over recent centuries. Compared to Old Testament times, women have made gains in agency, but still have a long climb ahead to penetrate the "glass ceiling". That may be why the male posters don't see Sexual Objectification as a major problem for modern liberated women, compared with their long history of abuse & misuse. :cool:


Sex & Aggression : Humans follow gender‐specific sexual strategies, display aggressive behavior, and respond to physical pain as do other animals. Yet human beings have the intellectual ability to express these tendencies uniquely in either destructive or constructive ways. The human being, unlike any other animal, must reckon with sexual ethics, the problem of violence, and the meaning of suffering.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0591-2385.00160

*1 Moral Progress : human rights. Ongoing global campaigns have targeted child labour, capital punishment, human trafficking, violence against women, female genital mutilation, and the criminalization of homosexuality. Each has made measureable inroads and, if history is a guide, these barbaric customs will go the way of human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, chattel slavery, heretic burning, torture executions, public hangings, debt bondage, duelling, harems, eunuchs, freak shows, foot binding, laughing at the insane, and the designated goon in hockey.
https://www.intelligentoptimism.com/steven-pinker-moral-progress

*1 Pinker's Progress : https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-18/steven-pinkers-ideas-about-progress-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

Biblical women's rights : men of the city gather around Lot's house and demand that he give them the two guests so they could rape them. In response, Lot offers the mob his two daughters instead, noting that they are virgins
Genesis 19

Glass Ceiling : an unofficially acknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession, especially affecting women and members of minorities.

he aesthetical experience, and the non-aesthetical experience, right? — 3017amen

Hmm. Why wouldn't we objectify an object if we have a non-aesthetical experience? It's still an experience of an object, no?

A wolf-whistle is a rude & crude way of complimenting an attractive woman on her sex appeal. And some self-confident women seem to accept such boorish behavior as a positive ego-boosting comment. But for many women, objectification by an unknown male could be perceived as an implicit threat, or a sign of dominance. — Gnomon

That's why rape, by conquering armies, has been so common. Most "nice young men", in their own society, would not think of raping a woman. But the anonymity of war, and the absence of male protectors, allows them to commit unconscionable acts of violence ("booty", in ancient times; "war crimes", in enlightened modern political parlance). — Gnomon

Gnomon! Indeed, that's human pathological/existential phenomena that Possibily and Willow are underscoring (which is the popular objectification definition)... .

Why wouldn't we objectify an object if we have a non-aesthetical experience? It's still an experience of an object, no? — Ciceronianus the White

Great point! Are you then admitting that we cannot escape it?

Sorry, no. I'm saying that if we accept your definitions, we can't escape it.

Sorry, no. I'm saying that if we accept your definitions, we can't escape it. — Ciceronianus the White

How can we escape it then?

How can we escape it then? — 3017amen

Well, if we must speak in terms of objects and assume that everything is either an object or "presents" as an object (I'd rather not), one way it could be done is by acknowledging that to be an object is not necessarily to be objectified; that, in other words "objectification" is something different from merely perceiving any part of the world. Instead, it's a way of thinking of certain parts of the world. So, we think about another another person in a way substantially different from the way we think of, e.g., a cheeseburger. Thus, if we must consider a woman to be an object or to be "presented" as an object we nonetheless conceive of her as something different from the object that is a cheeseburger, or whatever.

Presumably, even in a world populated by objects or "presented" objects, we're capable of distinguishing between objects and presented objects and valuing them differently. We don't have to think of women as cheeseburgers even if cheeseburgers and women are both objects or present as objects. Objectification becomes a manner of conceiving of a particular kind of object or presented object.

If we're not required to speak in terms of objects and assume that everything is either an object or presents as an object; if, in other words, we don't think of the rest of the world as objects unrelated to us to which we're spectators, to which we react, but instead consider our lives to be a series of interactions or transactions we as living organisms have to the rest of our environment, then we don't think of everything but ourselves as being "objects"--mere things we see or hear or touch or taste or run into, etc., having in common the fact that they are not us. Instead, there's no inclination to think they're all the same in some sense and treat them accordingly. We think of them and interact with them based on what their qualities are and the situation and circumstances in which we encounter them. That situation and those circumstances are impacted by prior experience of other circumstances and interactions. We know thereby that women aren't cheeseburgers, and that they're not "objects" like any other. If we treat them like cheeseburgers and think of them like cheeseburgers, then, we treat them as something they are not. We may do so in some situations, and it may be well and good in some when, for example they treat us in the same way consensually and the interaction is merely for sexual pleasure, but we know it would be otherwise in other situations.

With all due respect CW you are simply regurgitating the ethical, pathological, and/or dysfunctional stereotypes or stereotypical definition of objectification.

In fact, you provided no insight on how to escape from the phenomenon of the physical world in which we live, or said another way, the escape from the experiencial world of physics. For example, you had to default to a cheeseburger (to describe/explain your argument) which is in fact a physical object, correct? Thus using your metaphor of the cheeseburger, the burger is experienced as aesthetically unpleasing or pleasing, regardless. Those are physical attributes you experienced.

And so we make judgments about aesthetics whether it's objects without a consciousness or objects with consciousness. Male, female, dog, cat, tiger, house, car, clothing, etc. Why would you choose a yellow car over a red car, why would you choose a colonial house over a contemporary rancher, ad nauseum. You make judgments about objects you see through your sense experience.

Your argument seems to be that if I treat my car badly, and don't maintain it properly, that I've objectified the car. What if I treat the car the opposite; wash and wax it, change the oil regularly, keep it clean, etc.? Have I still objectified it?

I ask once again, how do we escape our world of material objects and associated judgments? ( Please don't take this the wrong way but I have to ask you, have you studied the philosophy of aesthetics?)

It's not a dichotomization, of course. Plato did just that though, by, in paraphrase, introduced the idea of 'inner beauty' in this case. Then the arguments/metaphors follow, like; the beauty of mathematics, the beauty of truth, the beauty of the mind/inner beauty, etc.. — 3017amen

In any of these cases, it could simply be beauty is learned. Communities want you to value X, Y, Z in these realms in order for you to appreciate them and value them. It could be functional. Someone who is "good" at math but finds no beauty in it, might not value it as much as a mathematician who savors a problem as "elegant" or "symmetrical".

Similarly
but again, it's the attraction to these aspects that is the mystery. Is it that it is the "other"? Or is it perhaps more culturally ingrained?
— schopenhauer1

Of course I don't think it's cultural. Using the cognitive science example of the attachment-theory, it's an innate feature of consciousness (I.E., Baby sees mom, mom leaves baby, baby cries.) Same when a new-born comes out of the womb. Everyone say's how beautiful it is (the object itself), without any 'real' Platonic inner beauty/intellectual connection. — 3017amen

I'm not sure how attachment theory has as much to do with it. Perhaps it can relate to how one functions in a relationship.. but not sure.

Existentially, the rubrics of society has very little impact. You would have to explain why human's masturbate. Alternatively, one would have to explain why people are born with either homosexual or heterosexual tendencies. But in either case, what you have is a something that's intrinsic and innate viz the need to procreate (masturbation) along with the physical object which is the desired means to an end, (at least initially-love at first sight, infatuation, etc.). — 3017amen

As I stated, it's not the libido itself that is cultural, but what it's directed towards perhaps. "This is what one finds attractive. That is not, unless you like unattractive things.." etc.

In other words, with some exceptions of course, there is a stick and a hole, along with some Platonic realm and other cognitive phenomena at work (Love). And I don't think either one of those have really changed much, meaning, as self-aware conscious beings, cognitive science has taken us all the way up to the theory of Love, which is where the mystery ends... . — 3017amen

I just don't think Platonic ideas have to do with it much. It is almost an abuse of language to say the symmetry in math is like the symmetry in a face or a body, etc.