Robots aren't conscious; and they produce interesting poems. Can we start from there, please? — csalisbury

That’s the problem isn’t it? Are they actually producing anything? It’s like saying a sausage machine produce sausages without input from humans.

But I don't fully understand what you mean by "contrary to the philosophy he worked so hard at." Heidegger has no ethical philosophy, really. Later Heidegger is preoccupied with language, technology, and poetry -- but never ethics. — Xtrix

Yes I understand that. My laziness in writing. I wasn’t referring to the ethics of the situation but the way he approaches us and the world and keeps drilling down. That sort of attitude, fierce as I called it, that idea of “forgetting of being” suggests, to me, someone who would be very conscious of why he does something and what’s behind the doing.

I have no way of, or interest in, judging him, except in how it might happen. Someone who seems so tuned into the blinkers we apply to ourselves and yet went wrong himself and then later regarded what he’d done as stupid (I can’t remember the exact words).

In some ways I can see that being the grounds for people rejecting him and his work; not because he worked with the Nazis but that it blew back on the grounds for his thinking and writing.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Well you’ve jumped from the boy to me so I am regarding it as an accusation. First of all you’ve made an assumption about the boy that suits you so that you can then challenge my “freedom” to objectify the female body, which is your second assumption.

So to follow these thoughts about culture to where they appear to direct us; for men to change their perception of women, to refuse to look at them in terms of anatomy and desire, is to create an environment of modified and moderate interest and consequently a fall in population numbers, which would seem contrary to our nature. Unless we have entered a new phase of our evolution (which would suit you).

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.

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.

It absolutely has a purpose beyond us. — schopenhauer1

So how much control over it should we expect? And how do we know what to jettison and what to build on?

This does sort of suggest that culture has a purpose that is beyond us. Which is kind of contradictory.

He believes being is that on the basis of which we define ourselves and everything else in the world, and that although the question has been forgotten we still walk around with a "pre-ontological understanding of being" - — Xtrix

It intrigues me that someone like Heidegger could focus so fiercely on this idea that forms the basis of everything he thought and then either find that engaging with the Nazis was the logical consequence or live a life completely contrary to the philosophy he worked so hard at.

Society needs there to be attraction for procreation perhaps. — schopenhauer1

I think you might have a point there. The sexualising of the female has to be ramped up to contend with cultural changes, even straight out boredom with life which results in falling population numbers.

I read recently that more and more young men in China, into their thirties, are not having sex or showing interest in the opposite sex. 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.

Edit: I’ve often thought that if women bend men into the shape they want then men will just lose interest in them.

If we all ignored your post how would you feel?

I need to make myself more clear, or possibly I don’t have a point.

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.

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.

Edit: just as an added complication; in the age of trans gender breasts no longer mean female.

It's something usually taboo, known to be covered in adults, — schopenhauer1

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.

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.

I was thinking about your comments on roles and culture.

I remember once walking behind a family on the beach and they had a young boy around the age of ten or twelve with them. Ahead of them were a couple of girls sunbathing topless. As he went past the boy could not stop looking, nothing would have stopped him.

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.

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?

The boy sees the things that make the difference. Maybe this is part of the confusion for heterosexuals with homosexuals, they don’t understand not being drawn to difference.

The habits and so called cultural norms are sort of pasted on top of those perceptions and shock of the differences.

This has not turned out as well as my thoughts, but I hope the gist of it is there.

You should be selfish enough to prolong your life — Outlander

Only that, or the quality of life.

And is that the same as happiness? Calvin was talking about happiness.

Yet, some people experience guilt and regret for failing to help others, which reduces happiness. — Calvin

Then I don’t think they’d be selfish people. They would be people who tried to be selfish.

How much of ourselves are we expected to give to others? Is it an idea that people regard as important in maintaining a functional society or is it a moral position?

Selfish is:

Doing something that disregards someone else's well being, — Marchesk

Is that wrong?

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

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.

What do we mean by selfish then?

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?

Is there actually anything wrong in being selfish? Is being selfish the same as harming others?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Heartbreaker.

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?”.

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.

But , you don’t even have to be attractive. That’s another problem.

by belittling herself? — TheMadFool

This is a problem. That’s your idea if it,

“Watch his tongue hanging out”.

It’s entirely possible, and more than likely happens often, that a women revealing parts of her body to a man isn’t about enticing him but ridiculing him; like saying to her friend; “watch this.”

Put 2 and 2 together is my advice. — TheMadFool

That’s a surprising statement on a philosophy forum. How can you know the thoughts or feelings, and more, of another person?

what is it that's being revealed by wearing revealing clothes and what is the purpose of revealing that which is being revealed? — TheMadFool

I know what’s being revealed but I don’t know why.

But consider this; other things, physical, are being revealed at the same time that you would not regard as sexual.

The point is, however, that all those men have something in common: they think of the woman as thing which must give them their sexual sexual satisfaction, they all objectify her. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't believe this is true. It's too easy to generalise to prove a point.

It's necessary, to support the theory of objectification, that the stare, or gaze, is always sexual.

The following is a perfect example of this:

As soon as a transaction takes place, in this case money, all bets are off.
— “brett” — TheWillowOfDarkness

What I meant by that statement is that the transactions turns the act and the watching into entertainment. Not that it is now legitimate. It's not clear anymore what she's doing and why the women is stripping. She may be stripping because she is starving or hoping to feed her children. We can't tell because she's now playing to the fantasy of the male. So I find it an unreliable example of the whole business of objectification. It's no longer real in any sense and is instead a contrived and manipulated situation.