Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objectification

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:06:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

To objectify someone is to strip them of consent. To perform an action on someone without their consent is to deny them the dignity that is inherent to all human beings.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:19:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:06:51 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

To objectify someone is to strip them of consent. To perform an action on someone without their consent is to deny them the dignity that is inherent to all human beings.

Why?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:21:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:19:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:06:51 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

To objectify someone is to strip them of consent. To perform an action on someone without their consent is to deny them the dignity that is inherent to all human beings.

Why?

Because the ability to have and express consent is what distinguishes people from objects.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:23:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:21:59 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:19:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:06:51 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

To objectify someone is to strip them of consent. To perform an action on someone without their consent is to deny them the dignity that is inherent to all human beings.

Why?

Because the ability to have and express consent is what distinguishes people from objects.

I realized that I just dug myself into a hole with that one.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:37:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Objectification can be:

1. Using another person solely for one's needs as a fungible tool.
2. As if owned (slavery)
3. The denial of concern for personality

I generally break sexual objectification into 3 groups.

1. Objectification of women

By far the most talked about.

2. Objectification of men

Much less concerned over than the objectifying of women.

3. Objectification of self

This is what I think is the only one that is important of the three groups. This is because it is not anyone, except for the person in question, is responsible for whether or not someone decides to get plastic surgery, or starring in an overtly sexual underwear ad.

Women and men are both objectified for the same things, but only women are constantly talked about. That is why the 1st and 2nd groups I put have no information in them. Men and women do the same things, and make the same decisions. I don't think they should be grouped differently. But with the way some radical feminists are getting attention today...http://thechindividual.files.wordpress.com... Men and women are (wrongly) separated when it comes to objectification.

Examples of sexual objectification can include pornography, strip clubs, models, prostitution, getting plastic surgery, always wearing "revealing" clothing, etc. For all of these things, the person in question is solely responsible for being objectified.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:38:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:23:08 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:21:59 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:19:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:06:51 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

To objectify someone is to strip them of consent. To perform an action on someone without their consent is to deny them the dignity that is inherent to all human beings.

Why?

Because the ability to have and express consent is what distinguishes people from objects.

I realized that I just dug myself into a hole with that one.

lol dude don't worry about "digging yourself into a hole" because this is one of those questions that there is no right answer to...

There are a lot of philosophy "noobs" who are "really sure" that they have the "right" answer to incredibly hard challenges.

They do not. These issues are up for interpretation... and just because I ask you a question (or anyone more or less emphatically asks you a question) doesn't mean that you're wrong.

Go as far down the rabbit hole that you can.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:39:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

To completely disregard their wants and needs whilst using them for a purpose.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:41:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:38:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:23:08 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:21:59 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:19:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:06:51 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

To objectify someone is to strip them of consent. To perform an action on someone without their consent is to deny them the dignity that is inherent to all human beings.

Why?

Because the ability to have and express consent is what distinguishes people from objects.

I realized that I just dug myself into a hole with that one.

lol dude don't worry about "digging yourself into a hole" because this is one of those questions that there is no right answer to...

There are a lot of philosophy "noobs" who are "really sure" that they have the "right" answer to incredibly hard challenges.

They do not. These issues are up for interpretation... and just because I ask you a question (or anyone more or less emphatically asks you a question) doesn't mean that you're wrong.

Go as far down the rabbit hole that you can.

Well my answer more or less doesnt hold up anyway. It excludes children and the mentally handicapped from "people" essentially doing the exact opposite of what I had in mind.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:52:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

I think PotBelliedGeek has a good point. I think objectification is subjective. One person may like being treated a certain way while another may feel those same actions objectify them. So I suppose it is a matter of consent.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:49:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

I suppose it would mean to be held to pre-concieved standards that are not necessarily true. Or at least this would appear to be a more modern feminist view of objectification.
Nolite Timere
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:09:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:37:56 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I generally break sexual objectification into 3 groups.

1. Objectification of women

By far the most talked about.

2. Objectification of men

Much less concerned over than the objectifying of women.

3. Objectification of self

This is what I think is the only one that is important of the three groups. Women and men are both objectified for the same things, but only women are constantly talked about.

This I agree with, but I also disagree that men are also neccessarily objectified in the media.

That is why the 1st and 2nd groups I put have no information in them. Men and women do the same things, and make the same decisions. I don't think they should be grouped differently. Examples of sexual objectification can include pornography, strip clubs, models, prostitution, getting plastic surgery, always wearing "revealing" clothing, etc. For all of these things, the person in question is solely responsible for being objectified.

This makes sense. We assume the 'male gaze' is aggresser, and the female 'object' is the receiver. Yet, the female is acting passive only. Whilst the male is bracketing himself to the domain of violence. In terms of your strip club, e.g.: The male becomes an object, the object of violence that acts. While the female becomes the object that receives.

This story has a linear bent.

What would the opposed situation be? If a man did not play the role of the male aggressor then he would become a woman. This becomes impossible.

Thus, man objectifies himself as violence. And woman objectifies herself as love/lover.

Man is death: Women is birth & rebirth.

There is a concept of the animus in psychoanalysis which says we can be both male and female, simultaneusly. I think, man objectifies himself by limiting himself to his gender role. In some ways, modern society limits our primal urges to be a warrior that hunts and kills and also engages us in a mind-game of being alpha males. We become passive-aggressive. This dualism leads men to rape and fetishize women as sport.

As Freud said, It is the suppression of violence that is violent in man.

But with the way some radical feminists are getting attention today...http://thechindividual.files.wordpress.com...... Men and women are (wrongly) separated when it comes to objectification.

The men's right movement are a bunch of pussyies. This whole notion of asking for legal protection is the ugly head of the animus rearing itself. It is asking men to ask for the same rights of women as women, in fact to become women. Man will continue to be objectified as objects of violence as long as he denies his true nature.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 3:23:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It has been my observation that we first objectify ourselves then later move on to objectify others. At any rate there are advantages to objectification, and serious disadvantages as well. The only way to cure that problem in society is to remove people.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:44:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 3:23:21 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
It has been my observation that we first objectify ourselves then later move on to objectify others. At any rate there are advantages to objectification, and serious disadvantages as well. The only way to cure that problem in society is to remove people.

What are the advantages?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 12:02:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:44:19 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/22/2014 3:23:21 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
It has been my observation that we first objectify ourselves then later move on to objectify others. At any rate there are advantages to objectification, and serious disadvantages as well. The only way to cure that problem in society is to remove people.

What are the advantages?

I apologize for not answering you before now. Depending on the context of the word, objectification can be a good thing. Art is an objectification of the artist's thoughts and feelings so that they can be shared with other people. I am an artist and basically what I am doing when I paint is objectifying a subject, like a koi fish in a pond for example.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:05:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 12:02:12 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
What are the advantages?

I apologize for not answering you before now. Depending on the context of the word, objectification can be a good thing. Art is an objectification of the artist's thoughts and feelings so that they can be shared with other people. I am an artist and basically what I am doing when I paint is objectifying a subject, like a koi fish in a pond for example.

That's really interesting. I never thought of it like that. Yes, you could be objectifying yourself for art like Frida Kahlo. People sometimes do fashion and self-presentation as art, but I've always thought of that as NOT objectifying yourself, ie dressing to make a statement is active rather than passive. But you're right, you can actively objectify yourself too. :)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:08:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

To objectify someone is to treat them as a one-dimensional entity with a singular purpose, like you treat any object.
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 2:50:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Objectification
YYW:: In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

The Fool: To treat people merely as "means" and not "ends" in themselves. That is, to use people as tools without regard for their well-being.

YYW: Why?

The Fool: Because if we don't take their well being into account, we cannot account for the harm we may causing somebody now or in the long run, for or own personal gains.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
*The Fool: Because if we don't take their well being into account, we cannot account for the harm we may [be] causing somebody now or in the long run, for or own personal gains.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 4:06:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 8:05:05 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:02:12 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
What are the advantages?

I apologize for not answering you before now. Depending on the context of the word, objectification can be a good thing. Art is an objectification of the artist's thoughts and feelings so that they can be shared with other people. I am an artist and basically what I am doing when I paint is objectifying a subject, like a koi fish in a pond for example.

That's really interesting. I never thought of it like that. Yes, you could be objectifying yourself for art like Frida Kahlo. People sometimes do fashion and self-presentation as art, but I've always thought of that as NOT objectifying yourself, ie dressing to make a statement is active rather than passive. But you're right, you can actively objectify yourself too. :)

I think that when objectification becomes exploitation and there is not consent it morally and socially crosses the line. For example when a celebrity poses for photos it is consensual and okay. When a photographer follows them and covertly takes pictures of them with their loved ones for capital gain it is wrong. A child cannot consent to exploitation and therefore child pornography and exploitation is wrong. The objectification that happens in advertising exists because sex sells and is basically exploitation for capital gain. It is wrong.

Objectification is not the problem. Example: my husband thinks I'm beautiful and I am the object of his desire. I'm happy about that. I think your profile picture is natural and beautiful. You chose it because it is an objective representation of what you believe and I appreciate your openness.

It is the intent that makes objectification a bad thing. What are your thoughts?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 4:09:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sexual Objectification

1harderthanyouthink: : I generally break sexual objectification into 3 groups.

1. Objectification of women

By far the most talked about.

2. Objectification of men

Much less concerned over than the objectifying of women.

3. Objectification of self

This is what I think is the only one that is important of the three groups. Women and men are both objectified for the same things, but only women are constantly talked about.

The Fazz:: This I agree with, but I also disagree that men are also neccessarily objectified in the media.

That is why the 1st and 2nd groups I put have no information in them. Men and women do the same things, and make the same decisions.

The Fool: Right. But there is a difference in tendencies and their frequencies, while it need not be Sexual Objectification, but objectification in an immoral sense.

The Fazz: I don't think they should be grouped differently. Examples of sexual objectification can include pornography, strip clubs, models, prostitution, getting plastic surgery, always wearing "revealing" clothing, etc. For all of these things, the person in question is solely responsible for being objectified.

This makes sense. We assume the 'male gaze' is aggresser, and the female 'object' is the receiver. Yet, the female is acting passive only. Whilst the male is bracketing himself to the domain of violence. In terms of your strip club, e.g.: The male becomes an object, the object of violence that acts. While the female becomes the object that receives.

The Fool: Excerpt From: http://www.debate.org...

Two types of causal powers are the following:

1. One way is to directly push or pull something with more or less strength. (stereotypically masculine)

2. A second way, is to use a magnet to pull things towards us at a distance. If we crank up the power of a magnet, we can cause more attraction..(stereotypically feminine)

Do you see how this works?

So feminist, by asserting the first one and denying the second, can always sell men as the victimizers, and woman as the victims. If anybody blames the second type of cause as a cause they get shamed with "blaming the victim.

End of Excerpt

The Fool @ The Fazz: I honestly can't take the rest of your post seriously. But this video is how a actual Men's Rights Activist would explain sexual objectification.

The Fazz: This story has a linear bent.

What would the opposed situation be? If a man did not play the role of the male aggressor then he would become a woman. This becomes impossible.

Thus, man objectifies himself as violence. And woman objectifies herself as love/lover.

Man is death: Women is birth & rebirth.

There is a concept of the animus in psychoanalysis which says we can be both male and female, simultaneusly. I think, man objectifies himself by limiting himself to his gender role. In some ways, modern society limits our primal urges to be a warrior that hunts and kills and also engages us in a mind-game of being alpha males. We become passive-aggressive. This dualism leads men to rape and fetishize women as sport.

As Freud said, It is the suppression of violence that is violent in man.

The men's right movement are a bunch of pussyies. This whole notion of asking for legal protection is the ugly head of the animus rearing itself. It is asking men to ask for the same rights of women as women, in fact to become women. Man will continue to be objectified as objects of violence as long as he denies his true nature.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:10:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:

The Fool: What I believe has happened is that Feminist have exploited these kind of issues so much that the original Moral Implication has become completely lost, and is instead being over generalized and assumed in the most trivial cases, especially when its seems a result of men's actions.

The evidence is how most people who have learned what objectification is via Feminism cannot sufficiently answer the Moral question even when given the "freedom" of defining what objectification is.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:23:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 4:06:00 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:05:05 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:02:12 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
What are the advantages?

I apologize for not answering you before now. Depending on the context of the word, objectification can be a good thing. Art is an objectification of the artist's thoughts and feelings so that they can be shared with other people. I am an artist and basically what I am doing when I paint is objectifying a subject, like a koi fish in a pond for example.

That's really interesting. I never thought of it like that. Yes, you could be objectifying yourself for art like Frida Kahlo. People sometimes do fashion and self-presentation as art, but I've always thought of that as NOT objectifying yourself, ie dressing to make a statement is active rather than passive. But you're right, you can actively objectify yourself too. :)

I think that when objectification becomes exploitation and there is not consent it morally and socially crosses the line. For example when a celebrity poses for photos it is consensual and okay. When a photographer follows them and covertly takes pictures of them with their loved ones for capital gain it is wrong. A child cannot consent to exploitation and therefore child pornography and exploitation is wrong. The objectification that happens in advertising exists because sex sells and is basically exploitation for capital gain. It is wrong.

I suppose with advertising, there's consent from the model who is being portrayed, but there's not consent from the people who consume it. I don't consent to being bombarded by those kinds of objectifying pictures all the time, but you can't really avoid it.

Objectification is not the problem. Example: my husband thinks I'm beautiful and I am the object of his desire. I'm happy about that. I think your profile picture is natural and beautiful. You chose it because it is an objective representation of what you believe and I appreciate your openness.

It is the intent that makes objectification a bad thing. What are your thoughts?

I just have a bad feeling about it. I was living with this guy, and maybe a year later, I found these porn files on his hard drive - just pictures, and they were ALL of this woman having sex with different guys. The guys looked nothing like him, but the woman looked a lot like me - almost exactly. She had the same kind of body and the same hair. And the date for downloading was three weeks before he met me.

Of course, it doesn't matter. He's kind and we have the same interests and the same sense of humor. But at the same time, I feel like our relationship is conditional on me looking a certain way. It's UNREASONABLE to expect otherwise, I know. Even so, it makes me feel bad that these sorts of connections with guys always require me to conform to some ideal of their desire in a particular way. I can't really explain it, though. It's not as if my body ISN'T me, but at the same time it's not a choice I've made. I feel that I should be lovable for myself - some kind of moral or internal quality. I try to let go of that, but I can't.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Garbanza: I feel that I should be lovable for myself - some kind of moral or internal quality. I try to let go of that, but I can't.

The Fool: Oh the Irony.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:51:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:51:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:23:47 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/23/2014 4:06:00 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:05:05 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/23/2014 12:02:12 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
What are the advantages?

I apologize for not answering you before now. Depending on the context of the word, objectification can be a good thing. Art is an objectification of the artist's thoughts and feelings so that they can be shared with other people. I am an artist and basically what I am doing when I paint is objectifying a subject, like a koi fish in a pond for example.

That's really interesting. I never thought of it like that. Yes, you could be objectifying yourself for art like Frida Kahlo. People sometimes do fashion and self-presentation as art, but I've always thought of that as NOT objectifying yourself, ie dressing to make a statement is active rather than passive. But you're right, you can actively objectify yourself too. :)

I think that when objectification becomes exploitation and there is not consent it morally and socially crosses the line. For example when a celebrity poses for photos it is consensual and okay. When a photographer follows them and covertly takes pictures of them with their loved ones for capital gain it is wrong. A child cannot consent to exploitation and therefore child pornography and exploitation is wrong. The objectification that happens in advertising exists because sex sells and is basically exploitation for capital gain. It is wrong.

I suppose with advertising, there's consent from the model who is being portrayed, but there's not consent from the people who consume it. I don't consent to being bombarded by those kinds of objectifying pictures all the time, but you can't really avoid it.

Objectification is not the problem. Example: my husband thinks I'm beautiful and I am the object of his desire. I'm happy about that. I think your profile picture is natural and beautiful. You chose it because it is an objective representation of what you believe and I appreciate your openness.

It is the intent that makes objectification a bad thing. What are your thoughts?

I just have a bad feeling about it. I was living with this guy, and maybe a year later, I found these porn files on his hard drive - just pictures, and they were ALL of this woman having sex with different guys. The guys looked nothing like him, but the woman looked a lot like me - almost exactly. She had the same kind of body and the same hair. And the date for downloading was three weeks before he met me.

Of course, it doesn't matter. He's kind and we have the same interests and the same sense of humor. But at the same time, I feel like our relationship is conditional on me looking a certain way. It's UNREASONABLE to expect otherwise, I know. Even so, it makes me feel bad that these sorts of connections with guys always require me to conform to some ideal of their desire in a particular way. I can't really explain it, though. It's not as if my body ISN'T me, but at the same time it's not a choice I've made. I feel that I should be lovable for myself - some kind of moral or internal quality. I try to let go of that, but I can't.

I agree with you about advertisers. We are the ones subjected to their ideals and objectification of women and men. It hits a sore spot for me because I have sons and daughters ranging in ages from 6 to 23 who are subjected to an image they can never achieve. That's why I feel if there is capital gain involved it's wrong.

As for the guy you are with. He is attracted to a certain type of beauty. He finds your hair and bone structure and general appearance to be an ideal and you are attractive to him. At least you know he likes the way you look. Love grows and evolves. With love he will always be attracted to you and trust me, he will always see you as what you are now. If he stops loving you for looks alone then he doesn't deserve you.

My ex-husband was into porn. I found files full of it on our computer one day. The worst part was none of them looked even remotely like me. Lol! Back then I was hot headed so I practiced my photoshop skills and put sensor bars across every photo. He never said anything about it but I think he got the point. We divorced years later. Not because he was a pervert but because he was violent and I had had enough. I remarried and he isn't into porn and wouldn't slap me around for anything. His intentions are pure.

Intent is the key word. The reason someone objectifies another person speaks volumes.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:24:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 4:09:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool @ The Fazz: I honestly can't take the rest of your post seriously. But this video is how a actual Men's Rights Activist would explain sexual objectification.

Against The Ideologist


^I will watch your vid later. My internet stops working near teh end of the month #thirdworldproblems
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:48:07 PM, YYW wrote:
In your view, what does it mean to "objectify" someone or "to treat someone as an object"? Why?

It means to violate Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative, to never treat another human being as merely a means to one's own end, whether that end be sexual gratification, as in the case of men reducing women to mere objects of erotic interest and enjoyment; or economic gain, as in the case of capitalist "job creators" relating to employees as pieces of equipment who exist to perform an economic function that produces expropriateable value; or militarily imposing American hegemony on another country, as in the case of our big business-big government complex that treats the troops were indoctrinated to support like cannon fodder, like expendable items whose function is to kill & destroy and who can be readily replaced when seriously or fatally damaged.

Well, of course our capitalist system is fundamentally oriented toward objectification and reification, reducing us all to cogs in the economic machine; and commodifying us all, along with all of nature's gifts, into mere objects of economic value and significance. This dehumanizing, instrumentalizing orientation of course trickles down to all of us, infecting how we experience one another; causing us, for instance, to relate to the supermarket checker or bank teller who facilitates our daily economic transactions as an automaton performing a function for us rather than an embodiment of the wonder of life in a human form possessing complexity, depth, and magnificent human potential. Yes, formed by a system such as ours, we're all somewhat oriented to objectify one another. That objectification is so prevalent and systemic and yet people still wonder what objectification actually means is indeed quite telling about the extent to which we're indoctrinated with a false consciousness about our true existential lot under capitalism. What objectification means is quite simply being robbed by our capitalist orientation of the fullness of our humanity.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.