Is Objectification such a bad thing?

[fuji]

I put the question on another thread--what's the big problem with objectification? Just because I sometimes view a woman as a sex object does not mean I can't also in other contexts view that same woman in other ways.

Gen replied with this link:

http://www.melted-dreams.net/definition/2006/03/14/but-dont-you-like-to-be-objectified-sometimes/

Here's my reply:

An object exists only for the purposes it was made

This is the basis of my issue: I don't agree with this statement. When we speak of sexual objectification we're speaking about fantasy. The object wasn't really made, other than in that moment as a mental concept. The mental concept exists only for sexual pleasure, and that is part of the fantasy.

The implicit claim in the above statement though goes far beyond that, that the REAL WORLD object is there for no other purpose, and/or that the person doing the objectifying in one moment is unable to perceive the real world object in a different way in a different moment--or even in the SAME moment.

Human brains are complicated things that operate on multiple levels simultaneously. I will put his claim out there: I am able to look at a woman I'm fucking and simultaneously sexually objectify her, and I mean, really view her purely as an object for my sexual pleasure, and at that same moment also view her as my friend, an intelligent co-workers.

Yes, simultaneously: The human mind operates on more than one level and is capable of holding more than one thought at one moment. The human mind is not even very logical so it matters not whether or not there is some sort of conflict between the ideas.

people are not objects

That is wishful thinking in my view. People ARE objects. Moreover, people are sexual objects--at least in the eyes of the individuals who are fantasizing about fucking them, and this is true for men and women in both directions. Radical feminist lesbians when they fuck one another are at some level objectifying each other in that moment--or else they're not really getting off, in my view.

People are complicated things. I really AM an object, to the extent that I am a physical thing in the world and other people are capable of physically interacting with me, manipulating me. I am an object in concept too for the same reason. That does not mean that is ALL that I am, the people that interact with me do so on many levels--physical, sexual, emotional, economic, intellectual, companionship.

my body, my breasts, my vulva . does not exist for the pleasure of anyone but me

Most of the time that's true, but at the moment that you consent to sex with another individual it is a physical fact that for the duration of that sexual experience you do in fact exist for that other person and you are in fact a source of pleasure for them.

This is arguing against fact, in my view.

Being objectified, being verbally or sexually abused, is often said to merely be the same thing as attraction

The author has not previously supported, in any way, the claim that objectification amounts to abuse. This is therefore an illogical jump in the line of argument--there is no reason to think that objectifying someone amounts to abusing them.

There is something to be said for the desire to submit, the desire to be passive, in a sexual or romantic dynamic.

Here the author is confusing subject and object. Just because someone ELSE is objectifying me in a sexual moment does not mean that is how I feel. I may be simultaneously objectifying them, and very active. Just because you are objectifying me does not mean that I am submitting to anyting or being passive other than in your fantasy.

So again what we have here is a conflation of the subjective fantasy of one person with the reality of another. The line of argument assumes that they are linked, but they are not linked--one exists in the real world, and the other exists only in the mind of the objectifier.

A real relationship allows for everyone involved to act however they like, to fill whatever role they like. Objectification does not. Objectification forces a role and a purpose onto the object

This conflates moments in time and ignores the fact that humans operate on multiple levels even in a single moment.

Just because someone objectifies me in one moment does not mean they will do so in the next moment. Moreover, they may simultaneously be objectifying me on one level, while interacting with me intellectually on another level.

The author supposes that these things are mutually exclusive but they are not mutually exclusive.

I am not willing to accept that anyone on Earth actually wants, of their own free will

Again conflating someone else's fantays with reality--I do not lose any of my free will just because of a fantasy that exists only in your head.

 

[genintoronto]

I don't have time to reply appropriately to all your comments there, but my general response to you is that you are both misreading the author, and misunderstanding the concept of 'objectification'.

By definition, objectification is dehumanizing. And "consensual objectification" in the context of an individual consensual sexual dynamic (such as a Dom/sub consensual exchange of power dynamic) is something altogether different from social objectification.

From the author cited above:

There is something to be said for the desire to submit, the desire to be passive, in a sexual or romantic dynamic. Some people feel more comfortable in dominant or submissive relationship roles. But this is still an active, consensual decision, and that is the distinction. In my relationships with my family, I enjoy caring for and taking care of others, I enjoy cooking and don’t mind cleaning because it makes everyone’s life more livable. If a young sibling is ill I will nelgect my own desires, my own plans for the day, in order to ensure that they are comfortable and all right. I would be absolutely the same if I were in a romantic relationship, because this is my personality and it is what gives me pleasure. I do not do this simply because it’s expected of me (it’s not), but because it is the role I am most comfortable expressing. This submission to the needs and desires of other people is an expression of love. If this submission is forced, rather than an active expression of the person in question’s authentic personality and desires, as it often is, that relationship is abusive.

Re: the connection between objectification and abuse. This is a well documented connection, and much as been written on it, in different context (from videogames, rape, slavery, to war).

Basically, the idea is that one main condition for one human being to be able to abuse, rape, kill, etc. another human being is for the abuser to objectify his victim. In other words, it is because one sees the other not as a human being, but as a dehumanized object that one is able to make violence to that other.

Re: "Just because someone ELSE is objectifying me in a sexual moment does not mean that is how I feel." I think this comment speaks a lot about who you are and your socio-political location. Obviously, you are not a woman living in a world where women's bodies and sexuality are being objectified on a daily basis. And I will make a guess that you are white as well.

 

[fuji]

I don't have time to reply appropriately to all your comments there, but my general response to you is that you are both misreading the author, and misunderstanding the concept of 'objectification'.

I mean "objectifying" in the sense you used it when you said that "who has the best ass" threads objectify women. Those threads view women in terms of sexual attributes, as objects for sex.

By definition, objectification is dehumanizing.

Then "objectification" loses all of its meaning and cannot be applied to those "who has the best ass" threads. It becomes an empty construct. Not worth discussing, not relevant to the real world.

You can't simply DEFINE it to be dehumanizing, you have to draw the connection, and show how a "who has the best ass" discussion is dehumanizing.

And "consensual objectification" in the context of an individual consensual sexual dynamic (such as a Dom/sub consensual exchange of power dynamic) is something altogether different from social objectification.

Let's consider porn. It's consensual objectification if the viewer willingly views it, and the actors and actresses willingly appear in it.

If I watch a porn movie staring you that does not mean that if I meet you tommorow over coffee that I won't appreciate you for your philosophical intellect. In fact as I've said it is possible to do both things SIMULTANOUSLY--the human mind is not so single track.

Re: the connection between objectification and abuse. This is a well documented connection, and much as been written on it, in different context (from videogames, rape, slavery, to war).

I think it's been over-done; I've never agreed with the concept of objectification. Certainly there are publications that portray various minorities in prejudicial ways but I do not think you have to resort to the empty construct of objectification in order to show that.

If you go back to the 1950's the problem with the media was not that it objectified women, but that it ONLY EVER objectified women. It never depicted women in any other context or role--only ever as sexual objects.

In that sense it was not the objectification of women that was the problem, it was the lack of OTHER representations of women that was the problem.

In modern society our media increasingly represents women in all sorts of roles, sex objects being just one of many. This is radically different than a media which ONLY depicts women as sex objects.

Basically, the idea is that one main condition for one human being to be able to abuse, rape, kill, etc. another human being is for the abuser to objectify his victim.

Not quite. It is necessary for the attacker to objectivy his or her victim AND fail to see the victim in any other way.

I've pointed out that normal people operate on multiple levels, simultaneously objectifying someone as a sex object and appreciating them as a friend. In the case you are describing it is not the objectification that is the problem--it is the LACK of those other forms of interaction.

Moreover you would be confusing cause and effect even if it were really some sort of simplistic exclusive relationship: It is also necessary for the attacker to have eaten sufficient food, to have breathed air, to be stronger, to have the opportunity, and so on.

There is no claim being made here that objectification CAUSES such attacks, only that it is one of many necessary preconditions.

Re: "Just because someone ELSE is objectifying me in a sexual moment does not mean that is how I feel." I think this comment speaks a lot about who you are and your socio-political location. Obviously, you are not a woman living in a world where women's bodies and sexuality are being objectified on a daily basis. And I will make a guess that you are white as well.

Let's leave aside character assassination and assumptions about each other's backgrounds.

 

[genintoronto]

Not quite. It is necessary for the attacker to objectivy his or her victim AND fail to see the victim in any other way.

I've pointed out that normal people operate on multiple levels, simultaneously objectifying someone as a sex object and appreciating them as a friend. In the case you are describing it is not the objectification that is the problem--it is the LACK of those other forms of interaction.

Moreover you would be confusing cause and effect even if it were really some sort of simplistic exclusive relationship: It is also necessary for the attacker to have eaten sufficient food, to have breathed air, to be stronger, to have the opportunity, and so on.

There is no claim being made here that objectification CAUSES such attacks, only that it is one of many necessary preconditions.

Hence, my specific use of the terms "one of the necessary conditions". I am not talking about causation, but conditions of possibility. Ie, objectification makes abuse possible. Conditions of possibilities do not deny human agency however, which would explain why some people do become abusers/killers and other don't.

I'll leave the rest for another time. I really DO have to get some work done.

ETA:

Let's leave aside character assassination and assumptions about each other's backgrounds.

My comment had nothing to do with character assassination.

I was simply suggesting, along with a large contingent of other social scientists and philosophers from various theoretical traditions, that one's socio-political location and subjectivity will necessarily and unavoidably taint and inflect one's understanding, perception, and experience of the world.

 

[a 1 player]

This is one of those threads where my better judgment tells me to just shut the fuck up, and falls into the same category as

Does my ass look fat in these jeans?
Do you think she is pretty?

Excuse me, I'm grabbing a beer and some popcorn and going to watch a massacre unfold.

 

[fuji]

I am not talking about causation, but conditions of possibility. Ie, objectification makes abuse possible.

I disagree. The LACK of other forms of interaction make it possible. Objectification is EVER PRESENT even in healthy relationships and only appears to be salient in these abusive cases because the many other layers of normal social interaction have been removed. It is not objectification that is the problem--it is the lack of everything else.

I was simply suggesting, along with a large contingent of other social scientists and philosophers from various theoretical traditions, that one's socio-political location and subjectivity will necessarily and unavoidably taint and inflect one's understanding, perception, and experience of the world.

That cuts both ways. It would equally mean that as someone who is presumably the topic of discussion you are completely and totally unable to form a valid opinion about it as you presuambly lack any objectivity on objectification! Do you believe that?

As I said, I'd rather leave the character assassination aside. Let's debate this on its merits. If either of us labour under misconceptions due to our perspective it ought to be possible for the other to point out the specific errors rationally.

 

[Cycleguy007]

Is this seat taken?

Excuse me, I'm grabbing a beer and some popcorn and going to watch a massacre unfold.

Me too... (well, maybe a rum & diet coke...)

 

[Keebler Elf]

As I said, I'd rather leave the character assassination aside. Let's debate this on its merits.

I think the other poster's point, which you keep missing, is that you can't separate the two. However much you might want to.

 

[red]

Let's leave aside character assassination and assumptions about each other's backgrounds.

fuji. with respect. I suggest you delete this thread.

 

[james t kirk]

fuji. with respect. I suggest you delete this thread.

Ditto that, I don't see this ending well.

 

[genintoronto]

That cuts both ways. It would equally mean that as someone who is presumably the topic of discussion you are completely and totally unable to form a valid opinion about it as you presuambly lack any objectivity on objectification! Do you believe that?

As I said, I'd rather leave the character assassination aside. Let's debate this on its merits. If either of us labour under misconceptions due to our perspective it ought to be possible for the other to point out the specific errors rationally.

Of course it means that my own subjectivity, socio-political location, and experience of the world will also inflect my understanding of said world. I never pretended otherwise, nor did I ever pretended to some archimedean (and illusionary) "objectivity".

I do believe though that my experience as a woman in this world gives me a particular understanding of social objectification that your own male privilege enables you the privilege to not see and recognize, and as such to deny its existence and/or problems.

Because that's one of the privileges of privilege: to be able to ignore other perspectives and experiences of the world. For instance, as a white person, it has been and continue to be easy for me, if I want to, to ignore the many ways in which race affects and organizes our society. Because I live in a world that is made for white people.

 

[toughb]

I will be providing translation of...

Hence, my specific use of the terms "one of the necessary conditions". I am not talking about causation, but conditions of possibility. Ie, objectification makes abuse possible. Conditions of possibilities do not deny human agency however, which would explain why some people do become abusers/killers and other don't.

I'll leave the rest for another time. I really DO have to get some work done.

ETA:
My comment had nothing to do with character assassination.

I was simply suggesting, along with a large contingent of other social scientists and philosophers from various theoretical traditions, that one's socio-political location and subjectivity will necessarily and unavoidably taint and inflect one's understanding, perception, and experience of the world.

***

this thread through PM.

Love it Gen...

 

[snowleopard]

Here ya go toughb ...

From 'Sex Objects for Dummies'

 

[toughb]

From 'Sex Objects for Dummies'


***

I am providing translation my good man and also providing reading lessons as required...

 

[snowleopard]

I am providing translation my good man and also providing reading lessons as required...

Yeah ok ... but don't forget the sexy Quebecois accent ... s'il vous plait

 

[toughb]

Ce ne rien... not bad for high school French

 

[genintoronto]

I will be providing translation of this thread through PM.

Love it Gen...

Yea.. sorry about that. As I said to someone else in PM, too many years in academia hanging out with academics have distorted my ability to converse "normally" in plain English.

I was simply suggesting, along with a large contingent of other social scientists and philosophers from various theoretical traditions, that one's socio-political location and subjectivity will necessarily and unavoidably taint and inflect one's understanding, perception, and experience of the world.

Here's the Terb translation: Dicks and pussies don't understand the world in the same ways because dicks and pussies don't get fucked in the same ways.

 

[fuji]

I note that you haven't responded to my points about objectification:

1. That it is not mutually exclusive with other ways in which people can interact with one another

2. That it can't be DEFINED to be dehumanizing since that makes any subsequent arguments that objectifying someone is dehumanizing circular

3. That it is not objectification, but the lack of other modes of interaction leaving only objectification, that is generally the problem in the harmful cases you gave

4. That the problem with the media historically is NOT that it portrayed women as sex objects, but that it ONLY portrayed women as sex objects

In short that objectification is a healthy, normal part of being human, and a healthy, normal way of interacting with other humans, and only appears to be a problem when other layers of interaction are missing.

You'll note I'm not responding to your claim that no-one is entitled to an opinion on the subject unless they are women: Yes we all have our own perspectives, if yours enables you to see something others can't then bring it to the table and make some points about what you see.

 

[BallzDeep]

I didn't read through all the drivel on the first page, too bored and lazy, all men and women want to be viewed as sex objects all the time, however preferrably only from people they themselves are attracted to.

When I go out I want women to look at me, it's the same for women, they want to be looked at, we all do.

 

[snowleopard]

I didn't read through all the drivel on the first page, too bored and lazy ...

Wait until Fuji's book is published, then opt for the 'Coles Notes' version from the library.