The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Female objectification as a natural response

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 492 times Debate No: 90132
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




First, I am not condoning the objectification of women as a proper means of human interaction in a civilized society, no am I condoning any of the behavior associated with the objectification of women. I also say all this from a male perspective, I do not rule out that the same conditions exist from a female perspective.

My argument is this; when a male of the species sees/smells a certain female of the same species; there is a hormonal primal attraction that creates a natural desire which places the that woman in a place objectivity as related to the desire. Furthermore, it is this very objectification that has perpetuated the human race, and though caused many a fray, often to the point of violence; is why we are all so deeply physically bound.



I thank Pro for the interesting argument he has presented. Pro has provided his argument from the first round, or so I assume as he says "My argument is this," and hence I shall provide my refutation in this round. I take it from Pro that the burden of proof is on him as he is making the assertion that: Female objectification stems from a natural response.


Pro argues, "When a male of the species sees/smells a certain female of the same species; there is a hormonal primal attraction that creates a natural desire which places the that woman in a place objectivity."

Refutation: The term "sexual object" is in itself, contradictory, as an inanimate object doesn't have sexual aspects, and hence the biological or hormonal tendency in the above example would be to couple sexuality to a living being capable of sexuality, and hence sexual objectification fails to be a natural response as the metaphor of a "sexualized object" is too complex for instinctive behavior. That being said, women objectify themselves[1] and hetrosexual women objecity other women[2] without a hormonal primal attraction or even a sexual tendency. Furthermore, there is no reasoning in Pro's argument that takes us from why a natural desire would lead to the specific cognitive behavior of sexual objectification. This is considered a hidden premise fallacy unless a logical connection is established. We have not received any scientific research supporting this hypothesis.


In summary, Pro has to satisfy his burden of proof by establishing that female objectification can stem from a merely instinctive/biological response. That is, independent of any socially-introduced factors. This requires conclusive scientific research otherwise it would be mere speculation.


[1] Fredrickson, Barbara L.; Harrison, Kristen (February 2005). "Throwing like a girl: self-objectification predicts adolescent girls’ motor performance". Journal of Sport and Social Issues (Sage) 29 (1): 79–101.doi:10.1177/0193723504269878.


Debate Round No. 1


SectorMercy forfeited this round.


Sigh. I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


SectorMercy forfeited this round.


Vote Con.

"Of him that writes. It is the common fate,
Of greatest duties to evaporate
In silent meaning, as we often see
Fires by their too much fuel smother'd be:
Small Obligations may find vent and speak, "
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: In R1, Pro argued that female objectification was natural because of sexual attraction. Con responded by arguing that sexual attraction isn't the ONLY reason why objectification occurs. Since the debate's resolution is unclear on whether Pro needed to prove that ALL female objectification stems from natural responses or just SOME, it is unclear who the argument point should be awarded to. Conduct goes to Con due to Pro's forfeitures.