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? — 3017amen
I ask once again, how do we escape our world of material objects and associated judgments? — 3017amen
Yes. A car IS an object - it has no agency, so whether you treat it with care or not is not the issue. A woman, however is a human being, and so expects to be treated as someone who has a right to choose the way that she interacts with you. When you fail to do that, you objectify her. — Possibility
We escape the world of material objects and associated judgements by recognising agency where it exists. — Possibility
Aesthetic appreciation can be achieved without denying agency, without objectifying. — Possibility
That you know that, and simply choose to ignore, it is objectification. — Possibility
If a young boy growing up around topless women took their appearance for granted then doesn’t it suggest that the appeal in looking isn’t learned or cultural. (Though it could be said it’s cultural by the environment he was raised in). But why did the boy on the beach stare? Because they were breasts? Why would they attract him so strongly. At that age his exposure to cultural aesthetics is still pretty low. The only other reason I can think of is the difference. The difference that is so stark between him and females is the radical difference in their anatomy. Not their minds but how they look. We can’t really know someone’s mind, can we, enough to define the difference? — Brett
The thing is if he had grown up with girls around him going topless he probably wouldn’t have looked twice at them. So just because they’re naked breasts doesn’t make it sexual. Which makes me think of my comments about the African women who embellish their bodies. Their breasts are exposed all the time, so I’m guessing they don’t have great meaning sexually in terms of looking. But the embellishments obviously does have some meaning in that sense. — Brett
But why did the boy on the beach stare? Because they were breasts? Why would they attract him so strongly. At that age his exposure to cultural aesthetics is still pretty low. The only other reason I can think of is the difference. The difference that is so stark between him and females is the radical difference in their anatomy. Not their minds but how they look. We can’t really know someone’s mind, can we, enough to define the difference? — Brett
It's something usually taboo, known to be covered in adults, — schopenhauer1
Here’s a thought: what if, when a boy is caught staring with fascination at topless women, he is taught to make the association with the concept ‘female’ instead of simply ‘breasts’? — Possibility
Does there have to be a reason behind what is taboo that we understand? Can’t we just go with the idea that somehow parts of the body in different cultures become taboo. Though that word is so loaded I feel uncomfortable with it. — Brett
The boy seeing the bared breasts that were so radically different from him or his male friends then finds that they disappear behind clothing and are later revealed, but not completely, through the cut of clothing or type of clothing. There’s a powerful sense of curiosity sublimated there. He’s never going to forget that powerful sensation of difference that his culture diverts into something else. So his curiosity does become entangled with ideas of concealment and desire. — Brett
The boy sees the breasts and is stunned by the what is different from him and his friends. The breasts aren’t sexualised yet. But the sense of difference is powerful. That’s not cultural. But then entering puberty the breasts become sexualised and the hidden nature of them becomes the cultural context. Or the other way around. I don’t think culture creates a sexual direction or imperative, not on purpose anyway. It’s a combination of his initial interest, maybe the “other”, his first real experience of it, and the consequences of then being deprived of it through social mores. — Brett
Society needs there to be attraction for procreation perhaps. — schopenhauer1
The consequence is fewer families and falling population numbers. Maybe not a problem in China right now, but when it comes to supporting the older generation where are the numbers going to come from. — Brett
This does sort of suggest that culture has a purpose that is beyond us. Which is kind of contradictory. — Brett
It absolutely has a purpose beyond us. — schopenhauer1
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. — Ciceronianus the White
So how much control over it should we expect? And how do we know what to jettison and what to build on? — Brett
Here’s a thought: what if, when a boy is caught staring with fascination at topless women, he is taught to make the association with the concept ‘female’ instead of simply ‘breasts’?
— Possibility
Because who wants a society that wants that sort of control over a person?
And without breasts the girls look no different from him or his friends. — Brett
too often in teachable situations such as these, no reference is made to the woman herself, of which the breasts are an inseparable part. — Possibility
Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? — Possibility
Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? Or do you think that threatens your freedom to objectify the female body if you choose to? This is not an accusation - it’s a genuine question. — Possibility
no reference is made to the woman herself, of which the breasts are an inseparable part. — Possibility
Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? Or do you think that threatens your freedom to objectify the female body if you choose to? — Possibility
Possibility suggests we raise boys with the idea that breasts mean female, as in who she really is instead of someone just desirable. I don’t think that’s even possible. I think nature would find a way around it. I think women may forget that there are other things that attract us to them: hair, smiles, jawline, eyes, clothes, the way they walk, talk and laugh. We can see this from a distance, which is where it begins. — Brett
If mens’ attitudes are encultured then so too must womens’. But then the argument goes that our culture is patriarchal and favours men over women and consequently women are objectified to suit the purposes of men. But what is the purpose of men? If it was not to seek women and form relationships that produced offspring there would be no purpose to anything else.
So men stare at women and for a reason. Women, by choice or enculturation, respond. Both by varying numbers and degrees. These are the brute facts.
In the end we can change it because some women feel it objectifies all women and we find that to be not just morally wrong but a poor environment for forming long term successful relationships. But we don’t know if it will contribute to forming better relationships or stifle them. — Brett
Perhaps all aspects of the revealing/concealing game would be diminished and then society would have to find other ways to promote attraction for the unfortunate effect of procreation. — schopenhauer1
It seems that if attractiveness is promoted at all, or attended to by males, females will feel objectified, no? — Pinprick
It was a teachable situation for the boy, just not one you understand. He was confronted with the difference between the girls and himself. It wasn’t a sexual moment but an existential moment for himself. — Brett
I don’t know if you have brothers but many of us are raised by our mothers and fathers to respect women, just as we were raised not to chose violence as a way of resolving differences. Anyway you’re making the assumption that the young boy at the beach is objectifying the girls. Why assume that? It’s possible that it opens him up to the world and the differences in that world that’s an essential part of his development. — Brett
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.