I don't have the right not to be objectified.

Three Seasons

I find it intriguing that so many people appear to feel as if they have a right to not be objectified. In order for that right to exist you must remove a person's freedom of thought, personal beliefs and inclinations, which is unrealistic and fairly draconian.

If someone only views me as an object that is their right, I don't have the right to dictate how people think of me.

Zebra3

T'rific.

super_furry

Objectify me. I want to be objectified so hard.

bullpost

Objection overruled then?

twowheelsonly

Amazing!!! I was just thinking the same thing myself :cool:

orestes

Not being objectified can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Of course you can't control how people think, but people do have a right to be treated with respect and dignity (or to put it simply, as people) and how one person thinks of others will have a large input on how they treat them.

For example, women were considered property in this country until relatively recently, until that mindset was changed the laws and social constrictions based on that mindset couldn't be adequately changed to the point that women were viewed as equal. If women were viewed as property or objects, they could not be viewed as people. You consider it unrealistic and draconian because the concept is alien to you since the changes in law and social conception have already been brought about by others who we not granted the rights that you now take for granted.

You might not care how other people think of you, but all rights are based on the notion of first recognising of an individual as a person, everything else stems from that.

If you don't have a right not to be objectified, then it follows that you have no rights at all.

Three Seasons

Three Seasons wrote: »

I find it intriguing that so many people appear to feel as if they have a right to not be objectified. In order for that right to exist you must remove a person's freedom of thought, personal beliefs and inclinations, which is unrealistic and fairly draconian.

If someone only views me as an object that is their right, I don't have the right to dictate how people think of me.

I may not have the right to not be objectified, but I certainly have the right to not be treated like an object.

I can't police peoples thoughts, but I expect people to police their actions.

galwayrush

I don't have the right not to be objectified.


Double negative make a positive, so you're really saying you do have the right to be?

hatrickpatrick

This will end well :pac:

Three Seasons

orestes wrote: »

Not being objectified can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Of course you can't control how people think, but people do have a right to be treated with respect and dignity (or to put it simply, as people) and how one person thinks of others will have a large input on how they treat them.

For example, women were considered property in this country until relatively recently, until that mindset was changed the laws and social constrictions based on that mindset couldn't be adequately changed to the point that women were viewed as equal. If women were viewed as property or objects, they could not be viewed as people. You consider it unrealistic and draconian because the concept is alien to you since the changes in law and social conception have already been brought about by others who we not granted the rights that you now take for granted.

You might not care how other people think of you, but all rights are based on the notion of first recognising of an individual as a person, everything else stems from that.

If you don't have a right not to be objectified, then it follows that you have no rights at all.

You going to have to fill in the chasm between "if you don't have a right not to be objectified" and "then it follows that you have no rights at all".

People IMO have the right or at least should have the right to think and believe whatever they want.

If someone views another person as an object that's their business, they can view people as umbrellas, coconuts or teddy bears if they want. It's their own business.

What rights does it take awy from you if someone views you as an object? Your don't have te right to dictate to other people what or how they think.

Another thing, I don't see how anyone is entitled to respect, that again is dictating to others how or what they think.

Madam_X

Three Seasons wrote: »

Your don't have te right to dictate to other people what or how they think.

Nobody said people didn't have that right.

Another thing, I don't see how anyone is entitled to respect, that again is dictating to others how or what they think.

Respect is just not acting the dick - if a person does nothing to deserve disrespect, then obviously they are entitled not to have to be putting up with people being dicks to them. Weird that you'd think the opposite... Speaks volumes tbh.

orestes

Three Seasons wrote: »

You going to have to fill in the chasm between "if you don't have a right not to be objectified" and "then it follows that you have no rights at all".

People IMO have the right or at least should have the right to think and believe whatever they want.

If someone views another person as an object that's their business, they can view people as umbrellas, coconuts or teddy bears if they want. It's their own business.

What rights does it take awy from you if someone views you as an object? Your don't have te right to dictate to other people what or how they think.

Another thing, I don't see how anyone is entitled to respect, that again is dictating to others how or what they think.

Objects have no rights, people do. So, if you are considered an object then it means you have no rights. Seeing others as objects (ie. property) and not people is a position that leads to slavery, exploitation, and occasionally genocide.

The right to be recognised as an individual and a person is the most basic and fundamental right that all other rights are built upon. It's the basis of the first article in the United Nations declaration of Human Rights.

Feathers

orestes wrote: »

For example, women were considered property in this country until relatively recently

As a matter of interest, how long ago would you consider still covered by the term "recently"?

IM0

no doubt there is a back story here, but Im ****ed if I know what it is or even care

Shenshen

orestes wrote: »

Not being objectified can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Of course you can't control how people think, but people do have a right to be treated with respect and dignity (or to put it simply, as people) and how one person thinks of others will have a large input on how they treat them.

For example, women were considered property in this country until relatively recently, until that mindset was changed the laws and social constrictions based on that mindset couldn't be adequately changed to the point that women were viewed as equal. If women were viewed as property or objects, they could not be viewed as people. You consider it unrealistic and draconian because the concept is alien to you since the changes in law and social conception have already been brought about by others who we not granted the rights that you now take for granted.

You might not care how other people think of you, but all rights are based on the notion of first recognising of an individual as a person, everything else stems from that.

If you don't have a right not to be objectified, then it follows that you have no rights at all.

I think there's a small but vital difference here, people's thoughts and people's actions.

I think that actions (as in, how people treat each other) are rightfully subject to laws and social expectation. But their thoughts? Policing these is a little too 1984 to me, sorry.

If you don't have the right to think what you want, it follows you have no rights at all.

Three Seasons

Three Seasons wrote: »

Another thing, I don't see how anyone is entitled to respect, that again is dictating to others how or what they think.

I don't think anyone is automatically entitled to respect, but I think people should be automatically treated with respect, until or unless they show themselves undeserving of it.

How one thinks and how one behaves doesn't always have to be in perfect alignment.

Shenshen

Three Seasons wrote: »

Another thing, I don't see how anyone is entitled to respect, that again is dictating to others how or what they think.

I do think that everybody has the right to be treated with respect.
Even if I honestly, utterly despise a person, I will still treat them with respect and as much fairness as I can muster, and I feel that's only right and proper.

That doesn't mean I have to think of anyone in a respectful way, just that I need to treat them with respect.
You could call that dishonest, but I think none of the alternatives will make for a happy, stable society.

Three Seasons

Madam_X wrote: »

Nobody said people didn't have that right.

Well you don't have the right to dictate to people what it how to think. We should be treated as equals. Maybe no one said it because its so obvious we don't have the right to dictate to people what their thoughts and beliefs should be.

Madam_X wrote: »

Respect is just not acting the dick - if a person does nothing to deserve disrespect, then obviously they are entitled not to have to be putting up with people being dicks to them. Weird that you'd think the opposite... Speaks volumes tbh.

Well your definition of respect is different than mine. If someone is obviously foolish I lose respect for them. Respecting people and treating people with respect are two different things.

When did I ever say people should put up with people being dicks to them?

Three Seasons

Madam_X wrote: »

Nobody said people didn't have that right.

Well you don't have the right to dictate to people what it how to think. We should be treated as equals. Maybe no one said it because its so obvious we don't have the right to dictate to people what their thoughts and beliefs should be.

Madam_X wrote: »

Respect is just not acting the dick - if a person does nothing to deserve disrespect, then obviously they are entitled not to have to be putting up with people being dicks to them. Weird that you'd think the opposite... Speaks volumes tbh.

Well your definition of respect is different than mine. If someone is obviously foolish I lose respect for them. Respecting people and treating people with respect are two different things.

When did I ever say people should put up with people being dicks to them?

Three Seasons

Shenshen wrote: »

I do think that everybody has the right to be treated with respect.
Even if I honestly, utterly despise a person, I will still treat them with respect and as much fairness as I can muster, and I feel that's only right and proper.

That doesn't mean I have to think of anyone in a respectful way, just that I need to treat them with respect.
You could call that dishonest, but I think none of the alternatives will make for a happy, stable society.

I never said people aren't entitled to be treated with respect, I said they aren't entitled to be respected.

orestes

Feathers wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how long ago would you consider still covered by the term "recently"?

I'm not sure of the exact dates, I think women were granted the right to vote with Irish indepndence in 1922, but there were still bits of pieces of the old system hanging around where women were the property of their fathers until marriage, when they became the property of their husbands (women being forced into magdeline laundries for example).

Shenshen wrote: »

I think there's a small but vital difference here, people's thoughts and people's actions.

I think that actions (as in, how people treat each other) are rightfully subject to laws and social expectation. But their thoughts? Policing these is a little too 1984 to me, sorry.

If you don't have the right to think what you want, it follows you have no rights at all.

I know there's a difference between thought and action, I made the same distinction in the second sentence of my post. The point I was making was that how people think and perceive others can have a substantial bearing on how they treat them.

Grayson

Objectification desn't remove anyone rights. Me looking at a hot girl and thinking "yeaaaaaahh" does not remove her rights unless it leads to my actions doing that.

If I am still respectful in all my dealings and treat her with the same amount of respect i accord everyone else (not matter what gender they may be) then I'm not doing wrong.

in any relationship, the woman would want to be objectified, they would want to be seen as a sexual object. As would a man. lets face it, you'd be pretty pissed off if your partner didn't find your body sexually attractive. It's only if this objectification encroaches on other parts of the relationship and ends up with one person being treated badly that it's bad. But in that case, a persons actions are causing it.

The reason people complain about objectification is because it's either from someone they don't fancy or because they feel that the rest of their personality is not being appreciated. Well, tough. Every single person on the planet has viewed another human being and thought Whoa. And i very much doubt they asked permission first.

Now, who wants to be objectified? PM's please.

Shenshen

orestes wrote: »

I know there's a difference between thought and action, I made the same distinction in the second sentence of my post. The point I was making was that how people think and perceive others can have a substantial bearing on how they treat them.

I've no doubt that it can.
But to me, that's the balance an open and free society needs to keep. If we started telling people how to think in order to control how they might act, we'd be doing far worse than just objectifying them.

Grayson

Madam_X wrote: »

Nobody said people didn't have that right.

Respect is just not acting the dick - if a person does nothing to deserve disrespect, then obviously they are entitled not to have to be putting up with people being dicks to them. Weird that you'd think the opposite... Speaks volumes tbh.

Respect isn't a right. It's earned. But it could be said that people have the right be treated respectfully. But that still doesn't mean you have to respect them.

I think some of my bosses have been dicks. But i still treated them with respect (mainly because i wanted my job. But that still doesn't matter since my point is that you can think one way and act another)

Fromthetrees

What the fck is this thread about.

I just don't understand what is being discussed.

I need to sleep.

jaffacakesyum

You have the right to think of people as you wish; nobody can police your thoughts. But you don't have the right to act on this. As in, you don't have the right to treat women as objects.

However, if all men thought as such it leads to societal actions, an extreme example bing years ago in Ireland (and still today in many countries) when women were (and are still in other countries) treated basically as a man's property.

By your logic anyway, people have the right to think of all men as paedophiles but we don't have the right to act upon that. However, the flawed logic in thinking that all/a lot of men are paedophiles and can't be trusted with children, leads to societal actions - such as it being seen as strange for a man to be alone with a child and affectionate towards them in a playground for example, when the child is in fact their own. Another action as a result of societal thinking perhaps is the inadequate rights for fathers.

Basically what I'm trying to say is nobody has the right to police others thoughts. But in terms of a 'perfect' society it would be ideal for people to have certain basic values such as treating men, women and children as human beings and not objects, and treating everybody equal. That's why I feel education is one of the most important things a country can have. Education in terms of academia yes, but also in terms of mutual respect for your fellow being, gender and sexual education, equality etc.

Easier said than done I know!

Also I realise I sound like the Dali Lama here going on about peace and equality and all that...eh let's just fix that....fúck all of you!! I'm going to punch you in the testicles/ovaries arrrgh :mad:

:pac:

ToddyDoody

Three Seasons wrote: »

I find it intriguing that so many people appear to feel as if they have a right to not be objectified. In order for that right to exist you must remove a person's freedom of thought, personal beliefs and inclinations, which is unrealistic and fairly draconian.

If someone only views me as an object that is their right, I don't have the right to dictate how people think of me.

Objects are non-living things not people. There's a best time and place for such a viewpoint and it is, in fact, non-living things and not people. Treating people that way is second-rate and a social life / work life where people are treated as objects is second-rate. Its the equivalent of taking a spiritual / religious approach to running a supermarket, it is inferior in that context.

donfers

objectification is fine...everybody does it, it's just whingers looking to be victimised who whinge about it or insecure people who make accusations of objectification because secretly that's what they want

it's perfectly acceptable to look at someone and think "whoa - what a hottie, i'd love to get on that"..from first glance you obviously don't know they have a doctorate in quantum physics or have volunteered to help african kids or whatever...all you can tell on first glance is that they have a nice rack, pins, abs etc...and that's fine

just don't assume that's all they amount to or don't act like that's all they've got going for themselves but other than that leer and salivate away,women do it every bit as much as men and despite the whinging, seeking victimisation classes thankfully you are still allowed to do this...they may try to turn you into some kind of robotic eyes to the ground at all times organism but you know what you should never be ashamed of being attracted to people because despite the offense-seeking classes hysteria we are still humans with blood and emotions and hormones etc. and we should not be ashamed of that

orestes

donfers wrote: »

objectification is fine...everybody does it, it's just whingers looking to be victimised who whinge about it or insecure people who make accusations of objectification because secretly that's what they want

it's perfectly acceptable to look at someone and think "whoa - what a hottie, i'd love to get on that"..from first glance you obviously don't know they have a doctorate in quantum physics or have volunteered to help african kids or whatever...all you can tell on first glance is that they have a nice rack, pins, abs etc...and that's fine

just don't assume that's all they amount to or don't act like that's all they've got going for themselves but other than that leer and salivate away,women do it every bit as much as men and despite the whinging, seeking victimisation classes thankfully you are still allowed to do this...they may try to turn you into some kind of robotic eyes to the ground at all times organism but you know what you should never be ashamed of being attracted to people because despite the offense-seeking classes hysteria we are still humans with blood and emotions and hormones etc. and we should not be ashamed of that

Objectifying someone isn't about whether or not you think they are attractive and not taking into account their other qualities, it's about seeing them as nothing more than an object, which means that you do not consider them to be a person. It applies to individuals, genders, minorities, races and cultures.

Saying people who complain about others being objectified secretly want to be objectified is like saying people who whinge about slavery really want to be slaves.

Grayson

orestes wrote: »

Objectifying someone isn't about whether or not you think they are attractive and not taking into account their other qualities, it's about seeing them as nothing more than an object, which means that you do not consider them to be a person. It applies to individuals, genders, minorities, races and cultures.

Saying people who complain about others being objectified secretly want to be objectified is like saying people who whinge about slavery really want to be slaves.

It's nothing like that. If I see a hot girl walking ahead of me, I don't wonder what she does, what are her dreams and aspirations etc... The same would go if a woman sees a hot man. When women looked at a cosmo centrefold, they saw a hot piece of meat. And there's nothing wrong with that.

If however they treat someone like a piece of meat, there is. Most people who have any sort of brain can tell the difference and will treat anyone they interact with with due respect. But it doesn't mean that they can't ogle them first. Or even occasionally afterwards.

NuckingFacker

Three Seasons wrote: »

I find it intriguing that so many people appear to feel as if they have a right to not be objectified. In order for that right to exist you must remove a person's freedom of thought, personal beliefs and inclinations, which is unrealistic and fairly draconian.

If someone only views me as an object that is their right, I don't have the right to dictate how people think of me.

If it's any consolation, I don't objectify you, sweetcheeks.