# Why is Objectifying People Wrong?



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

In order for something to be wrong or right, there must be choice involved. Men (and women) objectify people not based on choice, but on sexual instinct (they are hardwired to do it). So there is no choice involved in objectifying people and, therefore, objectifying is neither right nor wrong. 

So, I don't get why some feminists criticize men for objectifying women or professions that objectify people (porn for instance). Any explanations/insights/reasons?


----------



## ALNF1031 (Jul 27, 2011)

Well, in my opinion, your thoughts should never reflect whether you are in the "right" or "wrong". I think it should be your actions that count. So, if a person thinks that he really wants to kill someone, I don't think that's wrong. If he thinks about raping a woman, I don't think that's wrong. On the other hand, if he goes and rapes a woman or kills someone, _then_ it should be wrong.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

In my opinion, the concept of 'sexual objectification' is (usually) wishy washy. Most people define objectification as reducing someone to their sexual appeal and disregarding all other aspects of their personality (?). Since I don't see anything wrong with viewing people in a sexual context, I don't see why viewing someone in a hyper-sexual context is any worse than only considering someone in the context of whatever social role they play (ie. viewing your doctor as someone who exists to diagnose your medical problems and offer treatment, viewing a parent as your parent first/foremost and forgetting that they have a separate identity that has nothing to do with you etc. ). Nothing about viewing someone sexually has anything to do with dis-regarding who they are as a person or reducing them to a 'sex object' (anyone you're attracted to is an 'object' of sexual desire), humans have to sexualize one another in order to have romantic relationships, start families etc. What turns me off is the sense of entitlement some people have and I don't understand how people can sexually harass people they have such little respect for or brag about 'nailing' some "dumb slut". 

I haven't explained myself well but a meaningful definition of 'objectification', in my opinion, is to disregard the interests (namely pleasure and pain) of other people. If 'objectification' as anyone else defines it is wrong or unethical, it's the consequences that make it so. There's nothing about pornography that is inherently wrong regardless of whether or not anyone is negatively affected by it or would be any happier if it did not exist.


----------



## Anythingisfine (Aug 16, 2011)

Why is it wrong? Maybe because people's worth is more than a sack of skin.


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

CassiusClay314 said:


> In order for something to be wrong or right, there must be choice involved. Men (and women) objectify people not based on choice, but on sexual instinct (they are hardwired to do it). So there is no choice involved in objectifying people and, therefore, objectifying is neither right nor wrong.
> 
> So, I don't get why some feminists criticize men for objectifying women or professions that objectify people (porn for instance). Any explanations/insights/reasons?


I think that there is a difference between objectifying someone and being attracted to them. People may be hardwired for attraction, but that doesn't mean that they have to lose sight of the fact that the person they are attracted to is a human being and deserves respect.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

I think it's only wrong if you're not playing the same game.


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

@Monte @Kr3m1in I think she was saying that it is wrong because people are more than sacks of skin. 

Sorry.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

CassiusClay314 said:


> In order for something to be wrong or right, there must be choice involved. Men (and women) objectify people not based on choice, but on sexual instinct (they are hardwired to do it). So there is no choice involved in objectifying people and, therefore, objectifying is neither right nor wrong.
> 
> So, I don't get why some feminists criticize men for objectifying women or professions that objectify people (porn for instance). Any explanations/insights/reasons?


There is a choice involved. Your entire consciousness is not your evolved hard-wiring. If that were the case, you could not write your post because you'd possess no language skills. We're not hardwired to read and write. This is to say we can override our basic instincts and abilities.

If your motivation to not objectify women was strong enough, you would cease to objectify them.

Motivations in life are what drive us toward one path or another. If you say there's no choice, then you have yet to discover a motivation which contradicts objectifying women.


----------



## Kittann (Apr 12, 2010)

Simple; because people aren't objects. 
I think that the concept of sexual objectification as innate and uncontrollable is a load of crappola.

I may elaborate further when it's not 2 in the morning. :]​


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

I think women sometimes think they're being objectified when they really are not. A man staring down your low-cut shirt isn't objectifying you.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

I think a good thinkers' response would be that objectification doesn't affect anyone, and thus does not matter, unless it's done to their actual [read "demonstrable"] detriment. It's nice to talk about how porn leads to people objectifying women, but until there's proof that women who are not in porn are treated as objects because of porn [with no other causal factors], I maintain that it's not a factual argument. There's no logical link there. If I see woman A as a sex object because she's in porn, it does not logically follow that I would automatically treat woman B as a sex object. Women who are in porn should expect that kind of treatment; it's part of the profession.

It was also mentioned that attraction, or even lust, is not tantamount to objectification. Objectification entails devaluing them as a person in your mind. I do not do this, regardless. All people are people, even if they are very sexy and naked. :tongue:


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

Luke said:


> I think that there is a difference between objectifying someone and being attracted to them. People may be hardwired for attraction, but that doesn't mean that they have to lose sight of the fact that the person they are attracted to is a human being and deserves respect.


What exactly is the difference between objectifying and attraction according to you and how is it relevant to my question in the original post? To me,objectifying a person is to be sexually stimulated by the physical traits on that person. Attraction is an emotional connection between individuals that could be established by objectification (as I defined it) or personality traits of the individuals and other complex relational factors. As I said in the original post, people are hardwired for objectification: they don't choose to be sexually stimulated by the physical traits of an individual, they either are or they are not. 

And yes, objectifying or being attracted to a person does not mean you have to lose sight of the fact that the person is a human being. But I was not trying to prove otherwise in the original post either. What I was trying to prove was that objectification does not deserve the criticism that it is wrong because it is neither right nor wrong (as I concluded in the original post based on my premises). If people on here wanted to challenge my argument, then they need to falsify the premise that objectifying people is not based on choice.


----------



## Nearsification (Jan 3, 2010)

goodgracesbadinfluence said:


> I think women sometimes think they're being objectified when they really are not. A man staring down your low-cut shirt isn't objectifying you.










;


Always happens to me....


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

Razare said:


> There is a choice involved. Your entire consciousness is not your evolved hard-wiring. If that were the case, you could not write your post because you'd possess no language skills. We're not hardwired to read and write. This is to say we can override our basic instincts and abilities.


Put "read" and "write" aside. A better and more accurate comparison to what I am talking about is hunger. Sure, you don't have to respond to your instinct of hunger; hunger does not force you to eat. However, you will feel hunger and the drive to eat. In a similar way, you're not forced to approach a women when you are objectifying her. But that doesn't change the fact that you feel sexually stimulated. So, instincts like objectifying and hunger have effects on your mind, body, and feelings that you cannot alter. But how you respond or act upon those instincts is within your power.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

CassiusClay314 said:


> In order for something to be wrong or right, there must be choice involved. Men (and women) objectify people not based on choice, but on sexual instinct (they are hardwired to do it). So there is no choice involved in objectifying people and, therefore, objectifying is neither right nor wrong.
> 
> So, I don't get why some feminists criticize men for objectifying women or professions that objectify people (porn for instance). Any explanations/insights/reasons?


Here's an instance in which I find objectification wrong:
I went out and had some barbecue this morning, and when I went in the restaurant I saw that the waiters/waitresses were dressed entirely differently.
The men were wearing T-shirts and pants (Restaurant uniform, of course) and the women had to wear these tiny T-shirts which exposed their stomachs, and tiny short shorts that essentially looked like panties.
Not only is this degrading from the restaurant, this makes it much easier for customers to harass and hit on the waitresses, while nothing happens to the boys.

This restaurant isn't some Hooters place, either. It's just a regular restaurant. I live in a very small town, too, so for most of these young women (they looked 16--24) this job was probably their best choice.


Another awful thing about objectification is how since it is the norm, my actual accomplishments mean nothing to men. (Men who are bland/instinctive/immoral/non-intellectual, anyway.)
I have a lot of talents, but the sad and plain fact is that I would be treated better if I just sexualized myself, which is a huge waste of my life. I'm reserved and I'd prefer if only my future significant others knew the contours of my body, thank you very much.



I am able to control my objectification of men, and this allows me to enjoy life much more. I can go from cheaply oggling strange men from afar to completely detaching that part from myself and interacting with them as though they were a human (Shocking!!!) and not just a potential sex partner.


----------



## LadyJava (Oct 26, 2008)

CassiusClay314 said:


> In order for something to be wrong or right, there must be choice involved. Men (and women) objectify people not based on choice, but on sexual instinct (they are hardwired to do it). So there is no choice involved in objectifying people and, therefore, objectifying is neither right nor wrong.
> 
> So, I don't get why some feminists criticize men for objectifying women or professions that objectify people (porn for instance). Any explanations/insights/reasons?


Maybe you could understand if you looked at it a different way. Thinking of a woman as an object to be used sexually or for arm candy or whatever is kind of like a woman using a man as a paycheck without caring about him. Wouldn't it make you feel bad if you knew a woman was only using you to buy her things or pay for dates, and she didn't care about you at all as a person? Or didn't value you at all if you didn't make enough money?


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

Because I have insomnia and I have thought about social issues like these intensely, I'm going to do this:




CassiusClay314 said:


> In order for something to be wrong or right, there must be choice involved. Men (and women) objectify people not based on choice, but on sexual instinct (they are hardwired to do it).


If this is true, then how come women are by far the most sexually objectified?




CassiusClay314 said:


> So there is no choice involved in objectifying people and, therefore, objectifying is neither right nor wrong.


Nope. I'm living proof of a woman who (like I said before) is able to switch between sexually viewing attractive men to viewing them non-sexually. Am I the only person who does this? I highly doubt it.

Why are you using your life experience and projecting it onto other people? You are aware that humans are very complex creatures, right? Different strokes for different folks? 
Imagine if I took my own personal experiences and projected it onto everyone.
"All women are interested in guy for their personality, friendship, and intelligence, never for their bodies."
"All humans naturally gravitate towards a nocturnal sleep schedule, it's only how society works that keeps us all from being night-lurkers."
Looks funny, eh?


CassiusClay314 said:


> So, I don't get why some feminists criticize men for objectifying women or professions that objectify people (porn for instance). Any explanations/insights/reasons?


I love how obvious it is, by this quote, that only feminists take offense to this sort of behaviour by and large. <_<


----------



## notfunny (Aug 14, 2011)

Objectifying isn't the problem. Most people do it, both men and women. The problem is the in the power imbalance that has caused women to be objects and men the lookers. It should be obvious why this kind of thinking is problematic. 
I love objectifying men. I'm happy to see it happen because it's still much rarer than female objectification. In perfect world everyone would just objectify each others and people wouldn't have any problem with nudity etc.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

Again, I think we all need to remember that objectification entails judging by physical features ONLY. It does not mean being sexually attracted to someone. I can be sexually attracted to someone because of nice physical features without objectifying them.

Objectification leaves out the personality and spirit of the person in question. I argue that we are not hard-wired to do this. If we were really meant to only take into account physical traits, then we wouldn't take anything else into account when choosing a mate. There is a reason we were given [or developed] higher cognitive functions. We are wired to take all factors into account simply because we can. No other species really has the ability to do so.

So, I think we can all agree that objectification is a waste of our ability to function in a sapient manner. Is that natural?


----------



## Crono (Jul 5, 2011)

Yeah...though we do look for physical features naturally, I don't consider that objectification, that's more of a rationalization process where you think of a person more as an object than a person. (Arguably, this can apply for a high-paid executive in a completely different context just as much as it would for a horny teenager). Of course, you could argue that objectifying someone doesn't have to be a full-time job, (maybe you do it sometimes, but other times look deeper) if you define it that way, things get murkier.

What's interesting though, is some people seem to be ok with being looked at this way, at least sometimes. Now, whether in the big picture that's in everyone's best interest or not, I'm not sure. Either way, the way I look at it is, if we're just checkin' random people out and objectifying them, we don't necessarily know whether or not they're ok with us looking at them that way. To me, there's something that's not ok about looking at someone as an object if they're not cool with it, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

Looking for some clarification here (and I am serious). 

Is it objectifying if I look at a butt?
Is it objectifying if I look at a cleavage?
Is it objectifying if I look at a stripper?
Is it objectifying if I look at a porn star?

If none of these are then what is? I would kind of like to hear from a lot of you.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Luke said:


> I think that there is a difference between objectifying someone and being attracted to them. People may be hardwired for attraction, but that doesn't mean that they have to lose sight of the fact that the person they are attracted to is a human being and deserves respect.


This is true.




CassiusClay314 said:


> What exactly is the difference between objectifying and attraction according to you and how is it relevant to my question in the original post? *To me,objectifying a person is to be sexually stimulated by the physical traits on that person.* Attraction is an emotional connection between individuals that could be established by objectification (as I defined it) or personality traits of the individuals and other complex relational factors. As I said in the original post, people are hardwired for objectification: they don't choose to be sexually stimulated by the physical traits of an individual, they either are or they are not.
> 
> *And yes, objectifying or being attracted to a person does not mean you have to lose sight of the fact that the person is a human being.* But I was not trying to prove otherwise in the original post either. What I was trying to prove was that objectification does not deserve the criticism that it is wrong because it is neither right nor wrong (as I concluded in the original post based on my premises). If people on here wanted to challenge my argument, then they need to falsify the premise that objectifying people is not based on choice.


What you've described isn't objectifying, but attraction. When you objectify that person becomes an object. Nothing wrong with sexual attraction. 
Objectification is a choice


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

TreeBob said:


> Looking for some clarification here (and I am serious).
> 
> Is it objectifying if I look at a butt?


Only if it's my butt you're looking at. There is just _so much _more to me.


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

Nearsification said:


> ;
> 
> 
> Always happens to me....


I've also encountered females getting upset with males for looking at their boobs, but all the dude was trying to do was read their shirt. I mean, really? If you don't want people to look at your boobs, don't put words there!!


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> This is true.
> What you've described isn't objectifying, but attraction. When you objectify that person becomes an object. Nothing wrong with sexual attraction.
> Objectification is a choice


 So, according to you, objectifying people is not limited to activities involving sex; people can be objectified in slavery for instance. To resolve semantics, let's define attraction to be sexually stimulated and redefine objectification as to only regard a person's physical traits. 

Let me also note that there are different types of objectification that have differing causes. Some forms of objectification (slavery) are based on choice and people can therefore make moral assessments on that issue. The type of objectification I was talking about in the original post however is not based on choice. And despite semantic modification, I still think that objectification (of the sexual category) is instinctual. Here’s why: physical sexual attraction or stimulation is hardwired (as you or someone else admitted). It is this physical stimulation that causes (or forces) an individual to objectify the person (specifically physical traits on the person) he/she is viewing. And since physical stimulation is hardwired, it then follows (in this case) that this type of objectification is also hardwired (and therefore can be neither right nor wrong) due to the causal relationship between the two. *Do all forms of sexual attraction cause an individual to objectify a person? NO. However in certain cases it does and therefore it is instinctual (not choice based).*

Now, let's consider one of @_TreeBob_ 's questions: Is it objectifying if I look at a butt? To answer that question, we need more information on his conditions or mental state. If he is physically stimulated, then he very well may be objectifying that individual. Otherwise, he is not: he’s simply looking at her butt…unless of course he chooses to objectify her for whatever reason. 

NOTE: These are my opinions; feel free to critique any part of it.


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

Sovereign said:


> Again, I think we all need to remember that objectification entails judging by physical features ONLY. It does not mean being sexually attracted to someone. I can be sexually attracted to someone because of nice physical features without objectifying them.
> 
> Objectification leaves out the personality and spirit of the person in question. *I argue that we are not hard-wired to do this. If we were really meant to only take into account physical traits, then we wouldn't take anything else into account when choosing a mate.* There is a reason we were given [or developed] higher cognitive functions. We are wired to take all factors into account simply because we can. No other species really has the ability to do so.
> 
> So, I think we can all agree that objectification is a waste of our ability to function in a sapient manner. Is that natural?


Thanks for the information on objectification. However, about the part in bold, being hard-wired to objectify individuals does not mean that individuals will always objectify individuals when choosing a mate; you're only hard-wired to objectify when you are sexually stimulated to a certain degree (and of course that is not all the time). Likewise, hunger is hard-wired too, but depending on your physical conditions you are not always going to feel hunger.


----------



## Donkey D Kong (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

CassiusClay314 said:


> So, according to you, objectifying people is not limited to activities involving sex; people can be objectified in slavery for instance. To resolve semantics, let's define attraction to be sexually stimulated and redefine objectification as to only regard a person's physical traits.
> 
> Let me also note that there are different types of objectification that have differing causes. Some forms of objectification (slavery) are based on choice and people can therefore make moral assessments on that issue. The type of objectification I was talking about in the original post however is not based on choice. And despite semantic modification, I still think that objectification (of the sexual category) is instinctual. Here’s why: physical sexual attraction or stimulation is hardwired (as you or someone else admitted). It is this physical stimulation that causes (or forces) an individual to objectify the person (specifically physical traits on the person) he/she is viewing. And since physical stimulation is hardwired, it then follows (in this case) that this type of objectification is also hardwired (and therefore can be neither right nor wrong) due to the causal relationship between the two. *Do all forms of sexual attraction cause an individual to objectify a person? NO. However in certain cases it does and therefore it is instinctual (not choice based).*
> 
> ...


If that's your definition, then you'll find that many people here are agreeing with you in saying that there's nothing wrong with it. 

It's the other (true) definition of *object*ifying that people find (ahem) objectionable.

If you call and apple an orange it'll still taste like an apple, so arguing that it does is a moot point.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

OP: would you rather be treated as a person or as a collection of characteristics?

male caucasian
21 years old
blonde hair, blue eyes, 1.76m
university graduate, physics major

isn't it lovely to be described like that? no soul in it, nothing; when you look at a girl do you think

female caucasian
23 years old
blonde hair, brown eyes, 1.70m
university graduate, philosophy major

or do you think "wow that girl is pretty"?



Axe said:


>


I'll buy that


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> If that's your definition, then you'll find that many people here are agreeing with you in saying that there's nothing wrong with it.
> 
> It's the other (true) definition of *object*ifying that people find (ahem) objectionable.


And what is that "true" definition? Because, I'm pretty sure that I was using the definition you gave me in the post that you responded to.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> If that's your definition, then you'll find that many people here are agreeing with you in saying that there's nothing wrong with it.
> 
> It's the other (true) definition of *object*ifying that people find (ahem) objectionable.
> 
> If you call and apple an orange it'll still taste like an apple, so arguing that it does is a moot point.


I've always defined 'objectification' as disregarding someone's interests and treating them as an object (ie. something that has no interests and/or warrants no consideration) that exists for your benefit but some people feel this is overly simplistic which is why I want to hear a clear, concrete definition of what objectification is, some examples of it and why exactly it is wrong.

Is consensual sex work objectifying? Are beauty pageants objectifying? Are overly sexualized images of men and women in the media (tv shows, magazines, commercials, ) objectifying? Why? However you define 'objectification' (the word itself doesn't matter, only what the speaker is intending to describe), why is it wrong? Is it wrong because of the suffering it directly or indirectly causes? Is it wrong because it violates someone's preference not to be objectified (what about scenarios where objectification does not cause distress or frustrate anyone's preference)? Or is it wrong because of some deontological reason that has nothing to do with whether or not objectification frustrates anyone's interests or negatively affects them in any way?


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

While you can always have too much of a good thing, or anything for that matter, it's not "wrong". Even if it were a choice, it's not wrong.

It's the militant feminists who in their hysterical backlash to traditional views of women and their roles have overreacted by villifying objectification of woment.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redmanINTP said:


> While you can always have too much of a good thing, or anything for that matter, it's not "wrong". Even if it were a choice, it's not wrong.
> 
> It's the militant feminists who in their hysterical backlash to traditional views of women and their roles have overreacted by villifying objectification of woment.


Firstly, who are these "militant feminists" and what exactly is their "hysterical backlash"?

Secondly, how are you defining objectification? If you mean simple sexual attraction, you are not talking about objectification.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

CassiusClay314 said:


> And what is that "true" definition? Because, I'm pretty sure that I was using the definition you gave me in the post that you responded to.


Treating someone as an object. The clue's in the word.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Firstly, who are these "militant feminists" and what exactly is their "hysterical backlash"?
> 
> Secondly, how are you defining objectification? If you mean simple sexual attraction, you are not talking about objectification.


On the second point, if your are defining objectification as an absolute, then of course we agree because I flatly stated you can have too much of anything.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Ubuntu said:


> I've always defined 'objectification' as disregarding someone's interests and treating them as an object (ie. something that has no interests and/or warrants no consideration) that exists for your benefit but some people feel this is overly simplistic which is why I want to hear a clear, concrete definition of what objectification is, some examples of it and why exactly it is wrong.
> 
> Is consensual sex work objectifying? Are beauty pageants objectifying? Are overly sexualized images of men and women in the media (tv shows, magazines, commercials, ) objectifying? Why? However you define 'objectification' (the word itself doesn't matter, only what the speaker is intending to describe), why is it wrong? Is it wrong because of the suffering it directly or indirectly causes? Is it wrong because it violates someone's preference not to be objectified (what about scenarios where objectification does not cause distress or frustrate anyone's preference)? Or is it wrong because of some deontological reason that has nothing to do with whether or not objectification frustrates anyone's interests or negatively affects them in any way?


Who is saying that what he's described is wrong? They're saying that objectification is wrong.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

The main thing is:
I think pretty much everyone here thinks that there's nothing wrong with sexual attraction. 
So pretty much everyone agrees with the original post.

The confusion comes because he's used the term "objectification". But what he's described doesn't match the term he used. He's described sexual attraction.

So we're actually mostly arguing on the same side.


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> Treating someone as an object. The clue's in the word.


Just checking for clarification. And by the way, that was the definition I switched to in the post you responded to. I also argued how it was not a moral issue in certain cases. Any other objections?


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Who is saying that what he's described is wrong? They're saying that objectification is wrong.


I just want to know what people mean by 'objectification' when they argue against it because different people have different ideas of what it is. If people can objectify _themselves_ (they can, according to many 'sex negative' feminists), why exactly are some people offended on their behalf?



> The confusion comes because he's used the term "objectification". But what he's described doesn't match the term he used. He's described sexual attraction.
> 
> So we're actually mostly arguing on the same side.


I'm still confused. Pornography, sex work, the sexualization of people (or at least women specifically) in the media is often criticized by sex negative feminists as objectifying, so if sexual attraction is all right and sex work/the sexualization of people in the media is intended to satisfy sexual desire/elicit sexual arousal, what distinction are you making between the two, when does being attracted to someone become viewing/treating them as a sex object? A man can be sexually aroused by half naked women in bikinis, porn etc. but (according to most sex negative feminists) porn, sexually charged images of women in the media, prostitution etc. is degrading and objectifying, even if it's fully consensual. This is why I want a clear and concise definition of what people actually mean when they use the term 'objectification'.


> Treating someone as an object. The clue's in the word.


So what, besides rape and unwanted sexual harassment, constitutes objectification?


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

I would say for the most part objectification is rare. Most people whether they are turned on by a person or not don't think of them as an object. They think of them as a hot person. Objectifying is when you stop seeing them as a person and they are seen as an object or a tool for their lust. So it's pretty hard to tell what is going on in someone's head so therefore it's all subjective. Feminists are on a mission and they will say whatever they want. It doesn't make them right. 

Getting turned on does not mean I am objectifying anyone.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

If I look at a woman as a hot mama I want to do, and she stares right back at me, wants to hop in the sack with me too, does being objectified get canceled out,cause we're subjecting ourselves to our own hot desires, that involve each other? I had to raise the Martha Nussbaum criteria feminist philosophy , with Jean-Paul Sartre's key hole theory of existentialism philosophy .


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

CassiusClay314 said:


> Check out the link on post #47 (one page back) about objectification being hardwired. And I think you misunderstood my stance. My original argument's premise was stating that we only objectify people when we are horny to an extent...not that we always objectify people no matter what. There can be choice involved in objectification but not in the case that I was referring to. I will admit, however, that I could be wrong about this. I just wanted feedback from the people on this site.


I understand male brains work a certain way to react to images of the opposite sex, and that viewing certain images in excess will influence our perceptions to one degree or another, but I still don't see how one example proves that sexual instinct = objectification. In that case, the men were probably unaware of the effects of pictures, so I'm not sure this can count as true objectification, at least the type that occurs when someone purposely chooses to dehumanize others and use them for their advantage. 

I guess to one degree or another people will seek to fill their own sexual needs with another, and at one point or another those needs can override other thoughts, especially in the heat of action. Members on this site even admitted to enjoying love making over straight sex at times, and vice versa. We have to take care of ourselves, too.


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

WamphyriThrall said:


> I understand male brains work a certain way to react to images of the opposite sex, and that viewing certain images in excess will influence our perceptions to one degree or another, but I still don't see how one example proves that sexual instinct = objectification. In that case, the men were probably unaware of the effects of pictures, so I'm not sure this can count as *true objectification*, at least the type that occurs when someone purposely chooses to dehumanize others and use them for their advantage.


How was that example of the men viewing the women as objects not "true objectification"? It follows from definition number 8 (reduction to body parts) that the men were indeed objectifying the women. The meaning and application of the term objectification (def number 8) in this case (and all cases for that matter) depends on what the men were actually doing, not necessarily whether they purposely choosing to objectify (although this is usually the case I suppose). From the link, the men were shown images and perceived the women's bodies (or parts of the bodies) as objects with no choice whatsoever; it was instinctual or automatic as the studies suggested. 

And your statement, "the men were probably unaware of the effects of pictures": I don't see how this is relevant in this specific case of objectification equaling sexual instinct (or related to it in some way).


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

I think it's only wrong when it poses a real threat. And by "real threat", I also mean it as "not seeing someone as a person".

How would you like it if someone doesn't really listen to your opinions and just want to reduce you into a sex toy? Don't you feel threatened?


----------



## waxwhimsical (Aug 17, 2011)

I'm not going to go through the whole thread, but if the OP is still following it, maybe check out Hollaback! You have the power to end street harassment and do some research. 

Objectifying someone is consciously stripping someone's personal worth and feelings away until they are just a "thing." It's disregarding someone's human rights and it is aggressive, invasive and disrespectful. If you can't see why it's wrong to treat someone as though they are just a piece of flesh, well... I have nothing else to say. Only someone who has never been objectified wouldn't understand why it's wrong or hurtful.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

People need to stop using words that they don't understand.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

To put it more nicely:

1. Attraction doesn't automatically mean devaluing a person. Even if you have them as your desktop background or whatever.

2. It's silly to have to know someone on a deep personal level before you are allowed to feel attraction. Liking how someone looks without regard to the intricacies of their personality does not mean that you have forgotten the person is an individual with their own feelings, rights, and freedoms. 

Attraction to someone you don't know is just that, attraction to someone you don't know. This isn't necessarily "reducing them to body parts" because not knowing the person means that there's no intimate knowledge of their persona in the first place. _The body is all you are getting to see in that case._


----------



## waxwhimsical (Aug 17, 2011)

There's a huge difference between physical attraction and objectifying someone.


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

@_sprinkles_ (in response to your post #67)

1) I or anyone else did not say that attraction *automatically* means objectifying a person. 

2) Check out the link on one of my posts two pages back on post number 47. You will then understand my position much better. 

And for the record, this thread has educated me on the definitions of objectification, so don't raise a debate about that.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

CassiusClay314 said:


> 1) I or anyone else did not say that attraction *automatically* means objectifying a person.


Right. But not being automatic also means we cannot conflate the two in any way whatsoever



> 2) Check out the link on one of my posts two pages back on post number 47. You will then understand my position much better.


Objectification is still not natural attraction. They may happen side by side, _but they are separate mechanisms_ which shouldn't be lumped together.

Wanting to screw someone senseless may be a natural tendency but it still doesn't imply objectification because one can _still_ have regard for that person as an individual being.

I'm not attempting to debate this, it's just that the misplaced word causes the entire question to fall apart.


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

@sprinkles

I don't disagree with anything you really said. But the link did suggest that objectification was hardwired in the individuals. I was wondering if some intense level of physical attraction _caused_ the individuals to objectify. This is what I wanted the discussion to be centered around.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

CassiusClay314 said:


> @sprinkles
> 
> I don't disagree with anything you really said. But the link did suggest that objectification was hardwired in the individuals. I was wondering if some intense level of physical attraction _caused_ the individuals to objectify. This is what I wanted the discussion to be centered around.


Ahh, ok. 

As far as the link goes, I can see some problems with the experiment, the main one being the use of pictures.

In the end I think this is a social problem that ends up happening due to denying physical urges in a puritan, 'sex is evil' fashion. It's difficult to say what is 'hardwired' anymore when in many cases just seeing someone naked is considered 'bad' or immoral. 

I think being denied healthy sexual activity is just as bad as being denied air or water. If you've been denied air, your first reaction to having air again is to breathe in as much as you can. If you are dehydrated then your body wants to gulp buckets of water.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Right-

If I choose to sleep with someone because they're hot is that just as wrong as me choosing to work with somone who is intelligent? Or go for a drink with someone who is fun? 

Objectification and people who dislike it, seem to think that while we can't control how we look we can control our personalities, this of course, is wrong.

You've got to play the best you can with the hand you've been dealt.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Tawanda said:


> Nothing wrong with it if its mutual. The hooker objectifies the man as a walking wallet, the man paying the hooker objectifies the girl as a walking vagina.


Prostitution: Is there anything it _can't _solve?


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

The INFJs explanations are just magical. I grew up with an INFJ so I'm quite familiar with their insight (although my introverted intuition is still naturally very low). Considering the opinions of INFJs has made me have a very wonderful insight on this sort of thing, which is still developing, but I'll try to explain:

Basically, I see myself as an object. There was a time when I didn't - when I would have agreed with the "objectifying is bad" philosophy. But, the INFJs opinion has turned it into, well, the whole concept of an "object" is what creates the "badness" of the idea. A thing just is what it is. So, essentially, people ARE objects... "EVEN YOU" (as I would say in a Saruman voice) - just very complex objects which, when fully understood, are exactly equivalent to the subjects we know and love (or don't know and hate, as the case may be).

Also I don't think there's necessarily a "right" and "wrong", just a conflict of interests, ideas or methods. The material world is very complex and contains all the majesty and divinity that we can possibly imagine, because we are part of it. Nevertheless, destruction can still be justified and will "inevitably" happen because there are "always" going to be conflicts of interests which eventually build up to that level. If I look at what I think is "right" or "wrong", I find that I indeed "am" (or conform to) everything that I believe is "right" and nothing that I believe is "wrong". So I have no scientific say in what is really right or wrong since that is a conflict of interest in itself.

Personally I still disagree with the idea of a "conflict of interest" being "unethical", as, for example, if my company produced the second-best product and I was asked to say which is the best product, I would likely say it's the other company, because I wouldn't want to be incorrect - but ethics says I am not qualified to say anything because of the fundamental "conflict of interest".

It's easy to see why you "should" kill something if you imagine a werewolf - most of the time they may be a decent man, but every month they turn into a vicious monster that is a deadly threat to you and your loved ones, so the intuitively "correct" thing to do is to kill it. Personally I would put it in a zoo, but that's just my absolute benevolence talking


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

I really don't like the term odjectify in this case, what does it even mean? to treat as an object, impersonally. For one thing most people don't want to fuck an object, and it's a really abstract concept to think of how one treats an object vs a person the closest way i can understnad it is like their a vending machine, but most pornography goes out of the way to make it seem that the women enjoy it, so really don't get how that works.

I just in general dislike the term and if you want my opinion it's jsut psychobabble that people throw out to support their arguments


----------



## hackm (Apr 19, 2012)

As a bit of an aside:

I believe that objectification has often been wrongly placed on men that view porn or frequent strip clubs or even visit prostitutes. How are they objectifying women? The fact is: at the end of the night, these women are wealthy (relatively) and the men are living paycheck to paycheck just to satisfy this need. The men are objectified for their money.

A woman is only being objectified if there is a pimp-figure involved.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

SenhorFrio said:


> I really don't like the term odjectify in this case, what does it even mean? to treat as an object, impersonally. For one thing most people don't want to fuck an object, and it's a really abstract concept to think of how one treats an object vs a person the closest way i can understnad it is like their a vending machine, but most pornography goes out of the way to make it seem that the women enjoy it, so really don't get how that works.
> 
> I just in general dislike the term and if you want my opinion it's jsut psychobabble that people throw out to support their arguments



Disregarding one's personal depth is objectification.

A good example is if somebody sees a picture of a woman that they know absolutely nothing about on a personal level, and they say "I really want to do her!" Then they are essentially reducing her to an object - an obviously living and breathing flesh object, but an object that is devoid of persona as any other object from the viewers perspective. It is inherently devoid of persona because there is no way to even experience the persona. They cannot even say they like her as a person because they haven't experience her personality, they have only seen what her body looks like.

This is pretty much objectification in summary.


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

Nearsification said:


> ;
> 
> 
> Always happens to me....


I LOL'd HARD


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

SenhorFrio said:


> I really don't like the term odjectify in this case, what does it even mean? to treat as an object, impersonally. For one thing most people don't want to fuck an object, and it's a really abstract concept to think of how one treats an object vs a person the closest way i can understnad it is like their a vending machine, but most pornography goes out of the way to make it seem that the women enjoy it, so really don't get how that works.
> 
> I just in general dislike the term and if you want my opinion it's jsut psychobabble that people throw out to support their arguments


Objectification is common, damaging to relationships, most often done by men, and is usually tied to intimacy issues. It is possibly easier to understand as ignoring the need for a loving and caring relationship - one in which each person has the best interests of the other person as their goal - while seeking gratification for one's own desires. It is not uncommon for this to happen even in committed married couples if fear of intimacy is a problem in the relationship.


----------

