Sexual objectification

strobe · 10-09-2011 02:31AM #1

OK, I was just wondering what exactly is wrong with sexual objectification?

A few posts on here (on boards.ie) have implied that sexual objectification is a 'really bad thing'. Maybe it is... I'm not sure. I can't appreciate it as such at present.

Is sexual objectification inherently bad? If you believe it is, why do you believe that?

So I'm throwing the topic out there.

===========
===========

This probably should have been first but... How do you define sexual objectification?

raah! · 10-09-2011 03:22AM

I guess sexual objectification is valuing someone only for the sexual pleasure you can derive from them. Be it from successfully 'pulling' or just letching at them.

I think people have a problem with this because most people want to be liked for their personality and "who they are", and not everyone considers the whole of "who they are" to be tied in to their appearance or sexual worth. So when someone places such emphasis on their sexual worth it's like placing no importance on their personality. It's rejecting them as a person but still wanting to use them.

Zombrex · 10-09-2011 01:23PM

strobe wrote: »

OK, I was just wondering what exactly is wrong with sexual objectification?

A few posts on here (on boards.ie) have implied that sexual objectification is a 'really bad thing'. Maybe it is... I'm not sure. I can't appreciate it as such at present.

Is sexual objectification inherently bad? If you believe it is, why do you believe that?

So I'm throwing the topic out there.

===========
===========

This probably should have been first but... How do you define sexual objectification?

I think the objection to sexual objectification is misplaced. It seems some what of a hang over from the feminist revolutions, the idea that men don't respect women and view them merely as sexual objections.

The reality is that you can view someone as a sexual objection and still respect them. Women have been doing that with men for decades.

The issue then is not sexual objectification, it is more an issue of sexual humiliation, lessening the respect for someone through purposefully humiliating them.

One place you get this is in the text of men's mags (ironically given how much fuss is made about the images). I'm sure not many bother to read the interviews with the girls in these magazines, but they are far worse than the actual pictures.

The aim to present a particular view of the woman to the reader that makes her appear docile and dim, the idea being that they become less intimidating to the male reader and thus more appealing.

There has been research done in the past that this imagine presented to teenagers and young men can effect how they view relationships with women.

Mens mags need to adopt the model woman's mags (most of them) have always used, sexual stimulating pictures followed by actually interest questions (or simply no questions at all).

Dudess · 10-09-2011 01:47PM

I personally don't think so, once there's choice. The body is many things - one of them sexual. I guess it's not so great though when that one aspect to the body eclipses all the others.

raah! · 10-09-2011 06:17PM

Nobody thinks that there's anything wrong with valuing someones appearance. It would be silly to think that sexual objectification refers to "valuing someone's sexuality, amongst other things".

The term came into use in the context of people reducing other people to mere objects. Someone who has a wife and likes her personality as well as her sexual attributes is not someone who anyone would say is "sexually objectifying his wife". To treat the term literally like that is to completely miss the point. When people say "sexual objectification" they mean "turning into only a sexual object".

strobe · 10-09-2011 07:40PM

raah! wrote: »

Nobody thinks that there's anything wrong with valuing someones appearance. It would be silly to think that sexual objectification refers to "valuing someone's sexuality, amongst other things".

The term came into use in the context of people reducing other people to mere objects. Someone who has a wife and likes her personality as well as her sexual attributes is not someone who anyone would say is "sexually objectifying his wife". To treat the term literally like that is to completely miss the point. When people say "sexual objectification" they mean "turning into only a sexual object".

Yeah I get what you are saying Raah!, and I could see the problem if we were talking about someone treating their wife as merely a 'sexual object'. The thing I can't really understand is when you are talking about a model in a photograph or an actress in a movie or a stripper on a pole or a person standing at a bus stop even. I rarely hear the term used in relation to how someone views someone they are in a relationship with it's usually in the second context; e.g the current Hunky Dory's advertising campaign with the sexually attractive girls playing Gaelic football. That's the context in which I have difficulty seeing how it is a bad thing.

Denerick · 10-09-2011 08:28PM

The body is the animal manifestation of the human; as beasts we are either repelled or attracted by certain characteristics. Appreciating the human body either in a primitive or an artistic sense, driven by common sexual urges, is not in itself a 'bad thing'.

People fall in love with somebody's soul, not their body. Not that I'm religious but you'd lead a very grim and uneventful life if you depended solely on sheer sexual gratification. Its like you've made a conscious choice to entertain only the primal and animalistic part of your person. We painted the Mona Lisa and built the Pyramids... We may be beasts but we're capable of much more.

In short, sexual objectivication is a bit... disappointing... rather than being intrinsically wrong.

raah! · 10-09-2011 09:05PM

strobe wrote: »

Yeah I get what you are saying Raah!, and I could see the problem if we were talking about someone treating their wife as merely a 'sexual object'. The thing I can't really understand is when you are talking about a model in a photograph or an actress in a movie or a stripper on a pole or a person standing at a bus stop even. I rarely here the term used in relation to how someone views someone they are in a relationship with it's usually in the second context; e.g the current Hunky Dory's advertising campaign with the sexually attractive girls playing Gaelic football. That's the context in which I have difficulty seeing how it is a bad thing.

Ah yeah, well this is people viewing the add inferring from the emphasis on sexual features that those other features of the person are to be disregarded or seen as less valuable.

Here they are seeing the neutral harmless "valuing appearance of a woman" and tacking on "not valuing the woman's other characteristics". You can see how they would go from "adds where woman are depicted are always ones in which their physical characteristics are emphasised" to "the proliferation of adds in which only the physical characteristics of women are shown suggest that the people who make these adds value their physical/sexual characteristics more than their other characteristics, and are there fore sexually objectifying them".

So you could disagree with that series of inferences, I think that is their way of going from "sexy women in add" to "sexually objectifying women". This reasoning might be motivated by some other things also, such as people finding any sexual appreciation of a person to be bad. I'm sure you remember that retarded "don't sexualise me".

As Denerick's post points out, many people will create a distinction between the bestial/baser aspects of humanity with the rational/spiritual/higher aspects. And it's the general trend (especially in the context of people talking about sexual objectification as a bad thing) that the latter is morally preferable to the former. In many cases, the sexual/beastial side is not only viewed as "not good" or neutral with respect to the rational/spiritual, but bad, and something to be repressed. It's not hard to find religous/cultural examples of people who don't like sexual or bestial activities.

So if a person thinks that either the rational side of a person is better, then neglecting it for the animal side is bad. And if they think that not only is the rational side better, but that the animal side is bad, then any kind of sexual viewing of a person, regardless of how it is coupled with an appreciation of their other qualities, will be a bad thing.

Those two categories are the most common. There is that third category which will occur quite alot... but is somewhat rarer in feminists that "all we are is animals etc.", and from that perspective there is nothing wrong with sexual objectification, and it is even something to be desired.

So I think it boils down to the fact that most people do not base their idea of right and wrong on biological factors. The argument becomes one about a purportedly evolutionarily derived morality, or one which purports to overcome the animal inclinations of man. Of course this only happens after all those steps up there.

strobe · 10-09-2011 11:57PM

raah! wrote: »

Ah yeah, well this is people viewing the add inferring from the emphasis on sexual features that those other features of the person are to be disregarded or seen as less valuable.

Here they are seeing the neutral harmless "valuing appearance of a woman" and tacking on "not valuing the woman's other characteristics". You can see how they would go from "adds where woman are depicted are always ones in which their physical characteristics are emphasised" to "the proliferation of adds in which only the physical characteristics of women are shown suggest that the people who make these adds value their physical/sexual characteristics more than their other characteristics, and are there fore sexually objectifying them".

So you could disagree with that series of inferences, I think that is their way of going from "sexy women in add" to "sexually objectifying women". This reasoning might be motivated by some other things also, such as people finding any sexual appreciation of a person to be bad. I'm sure you remember that retarded "don't sexualise me".

As Denerick's post points out, many people will create a distinction between the bestial/baser aspects of humanity with the rational/spiritual/higher aspects. And it's the general trend (especially in the context of people talking about sexual objectification as a bad thing) that the latter is morally preferable to the former. In many cases, the sexual/beastial side is not only viewed as "not good" or neutral with respect to the rational/spiritual, but bad, and something to be repressed. It's not hard to find religous/cultural examples of people who don't like sexual or bestial activities.

So if a person thinks that either the rational side of a person is better, then neglecting it for the animal side is bad. And if they think that not only is the rational side better, but that the animal side is bad, then any kind of sexual viewing of a person, regardless of how it is coupled with an appreciation of their other qualities, will be a bad thing.

Those two categories are the most common. There is that third category which will occur quite alot... but is somewhat rarer in feminists that "all we are is animals etc.", and from that perspective there is nothing wrong with sexual objectification, and it is even something to be desired.

So I think it boils down to the fact that most people do not base their idea of right and wrong on biological factors. The argument becomes one about a purportedly evolutionarily derived morality, or one which purports to overcome the animal inclinations of man. Of course this only happens after all those steps up there.

I don't remember 'that retarded "don't sexualise me"' thing, was that a campaign against 'sexual objectification'?

Have you any thoughts on people that view people as 'just' animals (as I do) being opposed to 'sexual objectification' Raah! (do I have to type the ! every time?) and why they may hold that view?

Maybe this is where my confusion lies. I don't view the bestial side of humanity as lesser than the other side (I don't think there is an other side). But again I know people that have expressed the same opinion and still have a problem with objectification...

I mean, if I was to play a gig tomorrow a lot of people might love my music but not be particularly interested in my dreams and aspirations, or anything about me personally. They are 'musically objectifying' me which as far as I can see is equivalent of sexual objectification. But I wouldn't feel they were doing anything wrong. I wouldn't feel they were doing something right either, I'd just be neutral to it, ye know?

Reading back through your post maybe what I don't understand isn't why sexual objectification is wrong (in terms of someone viewing their wife purely as a sexual object) but how people manage to equate that sort of thing with someone looking at a sexually attractive person and not necessarily caring too much about what kind of sense of humour they have or what their opinion on the Armenian genocide of 1915 is...

I guess I need someone who believes people looking at a Playboy model and thinking of them as a 'sexual object' is doing something wrong to give their justification of their view. Any takers?

Denerick · 11-09-2011 12:11AM

@Strobe,

You say that man is but a beast yet you communicate with the same kinds of words that composed The Nutcracker and wrote Ullyses. We're more than beasts.

strobe · 11-09-2011 12:24AM

Denerick wrote: »

@Strobe,

You say that man is but a beast yet you communicate with the same kinds of words that composed The Nutcracker and wrote Ullyses. We're more than beasts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_5WCZ-XvG4

========

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS1tEnfkk6M

========
========
========

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGEHYY8c8VM

========

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt6r5A6_sVA

SuperInfinity · 11-09-2011 04:32AM

Denerick wrote: »

@Strobe,

You say that man is but a beast yet you communicate with the same kinds of words that composed The Nutcracker and wrote Ullyses. We're more than beasts.

He does say it, and I agree with him. We are beasts... though I would rather say we are "animals". So what if he uses words to communicate? Many animals use many different sounds to communicate, and other devices for communication that are a lot more complex and more meaningful/logical than how any of us communicate.

Also, who's this "we"? You didn't paint the Mona Lisa or build any pyramids. Are you now going to take credit for everything your species has done? You didn't do any of this.

The lion does not want the internet. The chimpanzee has no need for computers or poetry. I suppose you will turn around then and say that that's also because they are somehow inferior to us. They're not, perhaps YOU are inferior to THEM.

11-09-2011 07:39AM

Zombrex wrote: »

One place you get this is in the text of men's mags (ironically given how much fuss is made about the images). I'm sure not many bother to read the interviews with the girls in these magazines, but they are far worse than the actual pictures.

The aim to present a particular view of the woman to the reader that makes her appear docile and dim, the idea being that they become less intimidating to the male reader and thus more appealing.

There has been research done in the past that this imagine presented to teenagers and young men can effect how they view relationships with women.

Mens mags need to adopt the model woman's mags (most of them) have always used, sexual stimulating pictures followed by actually interest questions (or simply no questions at all).

Which mens mags? There are quite a few that don't, unless we're talking solely about mags like Nuts or others like it. But then I have wonder about this placing of womens mags on the pedestal of greatness. They too objectify men in both picture and text content. They continue many of the stereotypes about men, like the "Caveman" or "that most men will cheat, and that women are innocent victims". While you say most womens mags, there are more than a few than are on the same level as "nuts" or "FHM". Where we have articles on guns, they have articles on cosmetics. Where we have body building, they have dieting. etc. But if you look at the personal columns talking about relationships, there tends to be a common trend between the two... except just appealing to the different sex.

Otherwise... there would be more mags that are aimed at selling to both sexes.

The problem I see here is that there is no balance being made. Both men and women objectify each other. Its natural. We desire each other, and seek to make ourselves somehow greater than our potential partners. Its both a biological and psychological thing. Society itself has conditioned us daily to view our opposite sex as such.

Personally, I see nothing wrong in it as long its controlled like every other impulse we have. We all have the potential to misuse our instincts and this is no different.

gargleblaster · 11-09-2011 02:29PM

Can't expect to have a rational discussion of a subject without an understanding or at least a definition of what it is. Too many people already have their thoughts about this issue settled, before they've even bothered to read much at all about it.

SuperInfinity · 11-09-2011 03:53PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

Can't expect to have a rational discussion of a subject without an understanding or at least a definition of what it is. Too many people already have their thoughts about this issue settled, before they've even bothered to read much at all about it.

People can have a rational discussion about it using their common sense and knowledge. There is no need to read about this specific subject to have an opinion about it. We're not only able to copy other people's ideas and opinions. All you need is basic knowledge of evolution and a fair bit of thinking. The amount of knowledge a person has of published works shouldn't be used as prejudice against their arguments.

gargleblaster · 11-09-2011 04:20PM

Where serious discussions are the goal, I agree with Voltaire = "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

Without a clear understanding of what sexual objectification means, how can we discuss it and expect to know that the other person is even discussing the same thing we are? The issue of sexual objectification and the dehumanization that goes along with it are subjects of serious study. I would go into any conversation about it with that academic definition in mind.

For anyone who is curious, a simple Google search of the terms "sexual objectification dehumanization" would likely turn up many results showing the academic take on what sexual objectification is.

Denerick · 11-09-2011 04:39PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

Where serious discussions are the goal, I agree with Voltaire = "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

Without a clear understanding of what sexual objectification means, how can we discuss it and expect to know that the other person is even discussing the same thing we are? The issue of sexual objectification and the dehumanization that goes along with it are subjects of serious study. I would go into any conversation about it with that academic definition in mind.

For anyone who is curious, a simple Google search of the terms "sexual objectification dehumanization" would likely turn up many results showing the academic take on what sexual objectification is.

Are we discussing ideas or definitions here? Give it a rest people. The most interesting part of any discussion (IMO) is dissecting the assumptions behind every 'definition'.

11-09-2011 04:57PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

Can't expect to have a rational discussion of a subject without an understanding or at least a definition of what it is. Too many people already have their thoughts about this issue settled, before they've even bothered to read much at all about it.

I'm open and have always been open to being convinced other to that of my opinion... The problem though that this is not exactly something that can be proven like conventional science. In the end it just comes down to the opinions of various people that have spent too much time in university...

There has been very little attempting to convince anyone on this thread. Just our own opinions... although TBH I find that a lot more worthwhile in many respects. God knows, we all have to live through it in one form or another.

So... Sexual Objectification... Convince me.

strobe · 11-09-2011 05:05PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

Can't expect to have a rational discussion of a subject without an understanding or at least a definition of what it is. Too many people already have their thoughts about this issue settled, before they've even bothered to read much at all about it.

Where serious discussions are the goal, I agree with Voltaire = "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

Without a clear understanding of what sexual objectification means, how can we discuss it and expect to know that the other person is even discussing the same thing we are? The issue of sexual objectification and the dehumanization that goes along with it are subjects of serious study. I would go into any conversation about it with that academic definition in mind.

For anyone who is curious, a simple Google search of the terms "sexual objectification dehumanization" would likely turn up many results showing the academic take on what sexual objectification is.

Ah come now Gb. Is this not the point of a discussion website? Someone raises an issue and people discuss it. If you feel people are lacking an understanding of what sexual objectification is then why not put forward what you understand it to mean as per the request in the OP? I mean if every thread on here was just met with 'google it' as a response it would be a pretty dull affair and kind of defeats the point of engaging in a dialectic. I would have thought the fact that I started the thread in Humanities rather than another forum shows that I am interested in a rational discussion and the fact that I bothered to start the thread at all shows that I don't 'already have (my) thoughts about this issue settled'.

So if you are interested in a serious discussion on the topic why not take François-Marie's advice up there yourself?

Part of my reason in starting the thread was to try and gain an understanding of what different people mean themselves when they refer to 'sexual objectification'. If you have a view feel free to share it as other people in the thread have.

SuperInfinity · 11-09-2011 05:23PM

strobe wrote: »

Part of my reason in starting the thread was to try and gain an understanding of what different people mean themselves when they refer to 'sexual objectification'. If you have a view feel free to share it as other people in the thread have.

But an expression like "sexual objectivication" is extremely vague. I agree with gargleblaster in that sense: first you should try and define what it is you're talking about, then we can discuss it.

I don't go along with the concept of everyone having an opinion on what a word means. A word is supposed to be standard, something that everyone takes to mean about the same thing.

raah! · 11-09-2011 05:59PM

strobe wrote: »

I don't remember 'that retarded "don't sexualise me"' thing, was that a campaign against 'sexual objectification'?

This was a reference to comments made by that 'skepchick' character in a recent convention fiasco, as detailed in our mutually frequented forum.

Have you any thoughts on people that view people as 'just' animals (as I do) being opposed to 'sexual objectification' Raah! (do I have to type the ! every time?) and why they may hold that view?

Maybe this is where my confusion lies. I don't view the bestial side of humanity as lesser than the other side (I don't think there is an other side). But again I know people that have expressed the same opinion and still have a problem with objectification...

As for my name, I don't mind at all. You can even type 'rah' if you'd really like to less then load :P. I appreciate the capitalisation all the same.

I suppose the response to this is that you need not be some sort of mysticist to draw a distinction between what a naturalist would call emotional impulses (previously referred to as bestial etc.) and rational impulses. So there can be, and are, people who view people wholly materialistically and would still value what they would still call the higher (rational) impulses from the lower (emotional etc.).

If you do create no distinction whatsoever, then you may still be upset with being valued only for one of your characteristics.

I mean, if I was to play a gig tomorrow a lot of people might love my music but not be particularly interested in my dreams and aspirations, or anything about me personally. They are 'musically objectifying' me which as far as I can see is equivalent of sexual objectification. But I wouldn't feel they were doing anything wrong. I wouldn't feel they were doing something right either, I'd just be neutral to it, ye know?

This is a good example. The exact same thing can apply to people at a strip club, they are there to see the women's bodies.

But what people find objectionable about objectification is not just the valuing of their sexual attributes (or the valuing of your musical attributes in this thing), but a continued dismissal of their other characteristics.

So if you see it only as a once off naturally it's not going to see like anyone is making an judgements about your hopes or dreams. But if it were the case that anytime a strobe was on television it was just their music that was showcased, someone might say "why do we not see any of strobe's other characteristics, do you television people think he has nothing more to offer, do you think he is some sort of musical object". If every time strobe was depicted or perceived it was only in a musical function, that would strongly suggest that strobe was good for nothing but music.

This would be a bad thing even if you thought that music was as good as any of his other qualities, doubly bad if his music abilities were not something which he thought were his defining qualities.

So again, to see strobe as a musical object would not be to simply value his musical abilities, but to value them as his only abilities. Strobe's are good for nothin' but music. Would be objectification and would not be nice.

Reading back through your post maybe what I don't understand isn't why sexual objectification is wrong (in terms of someone viewing their wife purely as a sexual object) but how people manage to equate that sort of thing with someone looking at a sexually attractive person and not necessarily caring too much about what kind of sense of humour they have or what their opinion on the Armenian genocide of 1915 is...

I guess I need someone who believes people looking at a Playboy model and thinking of them as a 'sexual object' is doing something wrong to give their justification of their view. Any takers?

Yeah the difficulty there is in the difference between "valuing sexual attributes" and "valuing only sexual attributes".

You couldn't very well say that a person looking at someone's bum on the street was objectifying that person. They've never had a chance to see the person's other qualities. The same goes for someone looking at women in a magazine. They are at that time interested in the sexual qualities, that does not mean that they see there other characteristics as unvaluable, but simply not what they are interested in at that time.

I could say however, that even by looking at someone's bum, or any basic kind of sexual appreciation is contributing to sexual objectification. There's then a fuzzy area.

So it's a borderline case, where we can say if someone doesn't look at someones bum at all then they are definitely not sexually objectifying them, if they do, then they are to some extent, but the extent to which they value the person's other qualities will determine how appropriate the term "sexually objectifying" is to describe this bum looking.

With regard to "defining" a term like sexual objectification the best you can hope for is to look at it's usage. Often definitions are very useful and helpful, but in most cases a black and white definition of a word cannot be given. For example, asking someone to define something like "really bad" would be a bit silly. Just as much as asking someone to define "sexual objectification" which roughly can be translated to "forcusing on physical attributes to the extent where the other's are neglected" is also a bit silly. The extent to which looking at someone's bum can be called sexually objectifying a person depends on how much or what kind of bum looking you think implies a disregard for a persons other qualities.

Zombrex · 11-09-2011 09:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which mens mags? There are quite a few that don't, unless we're talking solely about mags like Nuts or others like it.

Nuts, Zoo, Loaded etc those types of mags.

I'll give you an example if you like

Hi Holly! What's been the sexiest thing about today's shoot, then?
So have you ever been curious with women before?
What's your favourite eve movie sex scene?
What do you look for in a bloke?
Do you have any hidden talents?
What do you feel is the future of the Euro given the current destablization of the Greek ecomony and the failure of the ECB to ease investor jitters?

So the last one was from something else...:pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

While you say most womens mags, there are more than a few than are on the same level as "nuts" or "FHM".

Can you give examples?

I can't say I commonly read girls mags, but contrast the interview questions in Seventeen with the ones in Nuts above

http://www.seventeen.com/entertainment/interviews/brendan-robinson-17q

They are equally stupid questions granted, but the ones directed to the men are generally about general stuff, about fleshing out the over all person, the ones presented to the girls are generally about sex or sexual fantasy for the men. It seems impossible to find a photo shoot with 2 girls in something like Nuts or Zoo (and my word I've tried!) where one of the questions isn't So would you like to kiss/fondle Lucy/Suzanne/Rosie/India/Emma

Deleted User wrote: »

Where we have articles on guns, they have articles on cosmetics. Where we have body building, they have dieting. etc. But if you look at the personal columns talking about relationships, there tends to be a common trend between the two... except just appealing to the different sex.

That isn't really anything to do with what I said though?

SuperInfinity · 11-09-2011 09:53PM

Zombrex wrote: »

They are equally stupid questions granted, but the ones directed to the men are generally about general stuff, about fleshing out the over all person, the ones presented to the girls are generally about sex or sexual fantasy for the men. It seems impossible to find a photo shoot with 2 girls in something like Nuts or Zoo (and my word I've tried!) where one of the questions isn't So would you like to kiss/fondle Lucy/Suzanne/Rosie/India/Emma

So what? It's a known and biological fact that males are more attracted to the physical looks of a female than vice versa. Scientific studies have shown that males continually get erections when looking at hot females, while females rarely get aroused unless they are told extra things about the man. Are we supposed to go down this PC path where females and males are supposed to think exactly the same way and have exactly the same views of each other? The females are more interested in money and status than anything else. How much money is on the line. That's much more unethical IMO than the natural inclination to choose beautiful partners.

And why should we favour personality over looks anyway? What's wrong with having a relationship based on looks? What if someone isn't so much fun to talk to? A person can't help that anymore than they can't help their looks. They can't make themselves more brainy anymore than they can make themselves more beautiful. Sure they can try and they can fake it for either of them, leading to further problems down the road as it's found out. A person's looks are based on their health, a person's health should be extremely important to themselves anyway.

On the other hand I do really think it's questionable to favour money and status over looks or personality, because money and status can be very cheaply gotten for some in modern times, while others who are actually productive people in the workforce or society don't enjoy anything like that status for unfair reasons.

Dudess · 11-09-2011 10:15PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The females are more interested in money and status than anything else. How much money is on the line.

Who would these "the females" be?

What's wrong with having a relationship based on looks? What if someone isn't so much fun to talk to?

Nothing at all wrong with being attracted to, and striking up a relationship with, someone based on looks - and that's not just the tendency of men. But jeez, if the really good-looking person (male or female) turns out to have zero personality and you can't even have a conversation with them, but you stay with them anyway "because they're hot"... bless. But it's apparently worse to be purely attracted to money. :pac:

Both equally as bad IMO.

Denerick · 11-09-2011 10:54PM

The way I see it, there are plenty of brain dead good lucking people. (And ugly people also, but thats another story) They're welcome to each other. I struggle to understand what they actually talk about though? Their looks?

Zombrex · 12-09-2011 01:26AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

So what? It's a known and biological fact that males are more attracted to the physical looks of a female than vice versa. Scientific studies have shown that males continually get erections when looking at hot females, while females rarely get aroused unless they are told extra things about the man.

What does that have to do with asking the models questions implying they are all lesbians or like to cook naked?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

And why should we favour personality over looks anyway? What's wrong with having a relationship based on looks? What if someone isn't so much fun to talk to?

What are you talking about? Did you read my post at all?

SuperInfinity · 12-09-2011 02:35AM

Zombrex wrote: »

What does that have to do with asking the models questions implying they are all lesbians or like to cook naked?

I didn't claim they had anything to do with those questions. They are cherry picked questions out of many thousands that seems to be on the back of that cherry-picking magazine "comparison" nonsense you just did. The demographic for those magazines is mainly teenage girls.

It has nothing to do with those questions, it has to do with male magazines in general having a more physically suggestive or sexual stance. In some magazines for girls those questions are also asked, maybe not at the same frequency, and that is what what I said has to do with it. A very poor question IMO.

Zombrex wrote: »

What are you talking about? Did you read my post at all?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you should start to take remedial english reading classes. This paragraph wasn't referring to anything you said, just something on this general topic. You're really starting to irk me Zombrex, frankly I'll be glad if we just left it at that (of course you can have your say on this but just don't say something obliging me to respond - even if it's you not understanding something I'm saying again just don't).

Typh · 12-09-2011 03:40AM

I don’t view it as a bad thing at all, within limits though. I mean, Kant wrote extensively on the fact that humanity may, and has, objectified things as almost instrumental if they meet a certain end, not unlike any other manufactured tool. Humans themselves don’t escape this scope. It was in his essays on paid whores who, in a sense, chose to sexually objectify themselves, as they saw it as a means to earn, even if their value lay in their utility as essentially sex toys. Don’t people make tools out of other people if they view them as an instrument to achieve something? It’s hyperbole, yeah, but people use other people. Gasp.

Even in this day and age, it’s not too out there to speculate that some of us have been with people who had beautiful external veneers but inside were hideously unattractive people. It’s animal lust, and seeing as we’re a collection of base impulses, to act on which would be no different than to inhale air, blah blah blah, why should it be an issue if a person wants to boil their lives down to eating, sleeping, ****ing? Sure the sex would be cold and devoid of emotional intimacy and sentimentality but, with reference to an above poster, I doubt a lion sheds a single tear and writes a poem for every single instance that it has sex with a lioness, which it might do like….400 times in a day... It’s an exaggerated example, I know, but I don’t see why humans should be shamed if they want to take emotions of the equation when it comes to the physical act of sex? I mean, as long as it’s not unilaterally imposed by one party on another, which is a matter of consent surely.

When I hear the word objectification, it carries some ominous negative undertones, which is fine at times, but, is it still objectification if you’re both objects? You either forgive each-other for being objects, get over it, and utilize each-other to achieve an end(gratification) or you forgive each-other for being animals, and for taking part in a very human act(gratification.) I mean, terms like dehumanisation and objectification have earned such negative press through human history, deservedly so, but I think these days people just toss them casually into discussions without qualifying their context.

All crudeness aside, if you, as a male, are some plastic masturbatory instrument for her to have inside her, and she’s some wet flesh that you can plough into to sate an animal impulse, to achieve climax, why isn’t that fine? Why does the violent friction have to be so often mistaken for emotional intimacy, or affection, or even love? I mean, some of you might have seen the video of the ape stick itself in the mouth of a frog, and use it as a device to masturbate, and I doubt the ape loved the frog. That example is a bit excessive, and is probably an ethical mine-field because the frog didn’t exactly give consent.
I mean, when we let ourselves be animals, why do we become less than human?

Also, I don’t see why people should be looking for textbook definitions on what sexual objectification is, because quite frankly, the ivory towers don’t own the naming rights to what it is and what it entails. Definitions are interpretations, often contentious interpretations at that. It’s a discussion forum ffs... I'm sure we can just talk about it without consulting some dusty academic annals…
Main-stream media and social conventions of what is seen to attractive, and what people should aspire to look like, will drag this discussion through the gutter. Moreso than frog rape already has... my bad.

Adding a disclaimer- I'm not suggesting we all go out and impose our will on frogs because of A)Loneliness. B)Evolution.

12-09-2011 04:22PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Nuts, Zoo, Loaded etc those types of mags.

I'll give you an example if you like
Hi Holly! What's been the sexiest thing about today's shoot, then?

So have you ever been curious with women before?

What's your favourite eve movie sex scene?

What do you look for in a bloke?

Do you have any hidden talents?

What do you feel is the future of the Euro given the current destablization of the Greek ecomony and the failure of the ECB to ease investor jitters?

So the last one was from something else...:pac:

And you have to consider the market that they're aiming at... Nobody who picks up those mags expects anything more than what you described above. But have you ever looked at other mens mags like GQ, Esquire, Menshealth, etc.? I must admit that I don't bother with mens mags much anymore but I have bought GQ and Esquire for long flights. While there are scantily clad women, the articles are more.... intelligent.

Can you give examples?

I can't say I commonly read girls mags, but contrast the interview questions in Seventeen with the ones in Nuts above

http://www.seventeen.com/entertainment/interviews/brendan-robinson-17q

Well, I could point to the hordes of teenage mags, but TBH I don't really have to. I've read some rather disturbing articles in the more maintstream mags like Cosmo... They do on occasion put up articles which aren't particularly flattering to men in general, often rehashing the traditional stereotypes. But then they're also hitting a market that has proven to make them money..

Sitting talking with the girlfriend about the articles in her mags was quite a revelation about the crap that is often thrown out about men. Just as many of the male mags aim to cover all bases for money/circulation so too do the womens mags.

They are equally stupid questions granted, but the ones directed to the men are generally about general stuff, about fleshing out the over all person, the ones presented to the girls are generally about sex or sexual fantasy for the men. It seems impossible to find a photo shoot with 2 girls in something like Nuts or Zoo (and my word I've tried!) where one of the questions isn't So would you like to kiss/fondle Lucy/Suzanne/Rosie/India/Emma

Well, you're buying the wrong magazines... There's different markets. I've "read" Nuts once (Never got past the cover with Zoo), and couldn't face going back to try again. FHM i read for a few years, but its more of mag situated in the middle. Just enough absolute rubbish mixed with some decent material. I'm sure you can find mags which will fulfill you with your need for a twosome photo shoot...

The interesting thing i find is that you go looking for a sexual fantasy in mens magazines... but why do you place womens mags as being higher? You don't read womens mags for a sexual fantasy... Different needs being answered. Just as I don't read my Computer Games mags expecting to find scantily clad women.. (or rather I don't buy it expecting them to be inside. Anything else is a bonus.)

That isn't really anything to do with what I said though?

Well, if we're just sticking to directly sexual or relationship type articles/material, then yup, it doesn't.

Scanlas The 2nd · 13-09-2011 09:27AM

I think it's interesting that some people think they are entitled to tell other people what their values should be. If someone values looks and only looks then that's their business and there is nothing wrong with it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 14-09-2011 04:49PM

I think it's interesting how this seems to be so much more socially acceptable when the 'object' is a man rather than a woman; compare the outrage over those Hunky Dory ads to that Old Spice ad or those Diet Coke ones from a few years back. I even remember seeing an ad where two women in their thirties steal the towel of a young handsome man to force him to have to run naked past them :eek: If the genders had been reversed there there would have uproar, and rightly so in my opinion. While I think there is a lot in men's advertising that could be described as the sexual objectification of women, women's advertising seems to have free reign to be as explicit about it as they like.

Valuing somebody's sexual attractiveness is fine, only valuing somebody's sexual attractiveness is fine (I guess). The only thing that makes me wary of it is the issue of consent. If you were really truly sexually objectifying someone, you wouldn't care if they were consenting to the sex, they would after all be an object. I don't ask my toaster before I put toast in it (or my penis). Even in terms of sexually objectifying somebody by looking at them, there's an issue of consent. It's not pleasant to be leered at, especially when it's blatant, and just because someone is sexually attractive doesn't mean it's any less unpleasant for them or that they're somehow asking for it.

But yeah, we all do or have done it. There's nothing wrong with sex, sexual desire, or purely sexual encounters/relationships, and a certain degree of sexual objectification comes with that.

Sexual objectification

Comments