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
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
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
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
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
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
This is probably a bit tangential but I wonder why or when certain body parts became associated with sexual attraction, etc. — schopenhauer1
No longer relevant, or replaced by something else, and if so what? — Brett
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
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
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
Your first premise is incohrent. — TheWillowOfDarkness
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 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? — 3017amen
How can we escape the world of aesthetic experiences? — 3017amen
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
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
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
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
But I would suggest that you present yourself as a whole person if that’s how you want to be judged. — Pinprick
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
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
So perhaps this kind of attraction or beauty is much more cultural than we think. — schopenhauer1
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
Perhaps I am totally wrong though, and it's all evolution all the way down.. — schopenhauer1
What more is there to debate? — Ciceronianus the White
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 ]Wanting attention is not the same as wanting sexual attention, and wanting sexual attention is not the same as wanting to be objectified. — Possibility
he aesthetical experience, and the non-aesthetical experience, right? — 3017amen
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
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
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? — 3017amen
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
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
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
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
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.