Sexual objectification

Standman

Ailani Wrong Safari wrote: »

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.

Yea it definitely is interesting the way it seems more acceptable for the man to be the object. A few weeks ago I was in the post office queueing and the tv's were showing ads for post office products. One was about some new An Post mobile phone service and it had a bunch of middle aged ladies at the sea side after going for a swim, this handsome young guy walks by in his swimming togs and after he walks by them one of the old ladies snaps a picture of him with her mobile phone, after which they all gather around to look at the pic and giggle to themselves. Imagine if it were old men discreetly snapping a pic of some young woman in her bikini and then leering at the pic, I'm pretty damn sure that would be viewed as completely unacceptable to be put in an ad. When men do it it's pervy, when women do it it's a bit of harmless fun.

I think a lot of it has to do with the perceived harmlessness of women doing this kind of thing. I've many times seen women being very uncomfortable with being blatantly leered at by men, but have never seen it happen the other way around. I think the idea is that when women are being objectified, many feel as if they are not in control of the situation and feel in danger. Maybe the mindset is that if some guy just sees a woman as some sexy piece of meat, there is little a woman could do to stop his sexual advances if he cannot control himself.

EDIT: Here's the ad just for reference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdZgYRbN0ZU

Typh

I too, do not ask my toaster permission before I put my penis in it. It would just be wierd if I did ask it, wouldn't it? It's an inaminate object after all, and I'm not a freak...

To electro bitch, unfortunately I'm not attractive enough to envision a scenario where I am quite literally boiled down to my physical aesthetics, and nothing more, but I can imagine how unpleasant it is to be judged solely on some impersonal criteria. One day I'll eventually stand at the bar and pout suggestively and lift up my shirt to expose abs that were individually chiseled by tiny pygmies, and people will flock to see, but until then, I'll stay in the middle distance.

It's appalling to think, in this day and age, it's still an issue of power, for want of a better term, that should measure the discomfort either gender experience when they may be leered at. Purely from a developed society's perspective though, admittedly. It's hideous to think that some people view humans as that cheap, and that all they can offer is a sultry pout and a hole, but that's within the context of whether or not they're allowing themselves to be viewed as such, which adds a bit of a grey area.

I'm going to go and do some sit-ups now... Nothing to do with this discussion...

philologos

I think it is bad insofar as objectification is basing a person solely on their appearance rather than who they are as a person. It is saying that the depth of the individual is essentially worthless.

A relationship based on the fullness of who the other is, right down to their personality is a million times better than a relationship based solely around how the other looks.

There is something profoundly depressing about the idea that people should be viewed solely on the basis of appearance rather than the fullness of the person they were created to be.

Perhaps I'm an idealist, I don't know. We can all fall into the temptation of objectifying others, but it is something that I feel that I should resist.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I think it is bad insofar as objectification is basing a person solely on their appearance rather than who they are as a person. It is saying that the depth of the individual is essentially worthless.

It can be, but equally it doesn't have to be.

For example if I say Wow that woman is stunning, I would love to have sex with her am I also saying that her personality, her feelings, her emotions etc are worthless?

You certainly can view all those things as worthless, but the two do not automatically go hand in hand.

philologos

As far as I think it is about as futile as chasing after the wind if one is viewing and perhaps using someone as a sexual object for ones gratification rather than looking at them in fullness for who they are including personality and so on.

That feels unethical for me.

That's essentially what I'm saying. I never I felt it wrong that one couldn't view attractiveness as part of a composite. For example in respect to a relationship husband has with his wife I would see that as being entirely normal, and entirely healthy.

Typh

I would say a lot of people do see people across a crowded room and silently mouth 'My god, I would literally go down on her until her legs stop working,' but as Zombrex pointed out, it doesn't necessarily have to be an issue where you're limiting the value of a human being to how they look physically. To do so immediately sounds incredibly base. Fact of the matter is, visual is very often the first stimulus, and often a very motivating stimulus at that. It doesn't have to always be so hollow, but often is, and there are so many mitigating circumstances that play into attraction that it isn't always as ugly as people deem it to be when it's just bodies opposing bodies in friction, and nothing more.

philologos

Typh: Read my last post. I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't believe that it is sexual objectification to love ones wife or husband in full including in terms of their sexual attractiveness. I do believe that it is objectification to seek someone purely on the basis of sexual gratification rather than any other reason.

Typh

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you philio, I'm sorry if I came across that way although I must point out the fact, if there is any uncertainty on the matter, that I feel, as animals, there should be no shame dissuading us from being animals. Ethics or not, it's what we are, and the physical act of sex, with or without love within the equation, is a very animal act.

I make an immediate differentiation between people using eachother, and themselves, as objects of sexual gratification, and those who seek out partners based entirely on their physical appearance, which I'm sure most will agree, is incredibly vacuous.

philologos

Typh: I think that humans as rational-animals in the Aristotelian sense should look to higher standards. We should strive to do the right thing and in so doing making the world around us a better place. I have no doubt that if people didn't regard people solely as sexual objects the world would be a better place. Sexual exploitation, sexual harrassment, damaging sexual relationships that end up doing more harm than good on the basis of objectification, pornography, prostitution and so on. People mightn't agree with me, but I personally think the world would be a better place without all of these things.

Typh

Some of those statements I have to take umbrage with. The thing is, I'll base this statement on my own opinion and nothing so as not to offend, when we ****, whether violently or tender and passionately, it's still the physical act, and to say it's something less when it's without emotion or sentimentality is just wrong.
In no way am I saying you're being an idealist, or wallowing in some ideal abstract notion of what humans should strive to, but the initial point I made was discussing how sexual objectification wasn't a bad thing when it was by mutual consent, where it's not 'unilaterally imposed,' or some other tool statement that I would probably make. That applies equally to pornography and prostitution in my eyes, and it's fine if it's my eyes alone, but that's how I view it. It's an issue of consent in that sense.

What I do disagree with is the idea that sexual objectification, by it's self, is not 'the right thing,' and is thereby the wrong thing. It's not as malicious as people often make it. I mentioned about how important it is to qualify the context, otherwise you're just trivialising and belittling issues that deserve more serious thought than sweeping statements about how offensive they are to society, and humanity as a whole for the matter.

philologos

I think where we disagree is that I think that sexual objectification I.E viewing the other as a sexual object or as a means to derive sexual gratification is inherently undesirable and ultimately detrimental in some way to the make-up of societal values.

Typh

I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with viewing another person as a means to find sexual gratification, so long as both parties are knowingly engaged to that end. It may be hollow, and unemotional, and merely an exchange of friction, whether it's your tongue on the weak spot of the death-star, or her hand wrapped around your shaft, it should be shameless in this context.
It's unhealthy to a certain extent, to the point that you may die alone because of your intimacy issues, but the idea that unemotional sex, whereby both parties are physically engaged based purely on physical impulse, is somehow detrimental to us striving to our ideal as human, is just off in my opinion. It's not wrong to **** like animals. We are animals, although we **** with a bit more civility, which is fine, but when we don't, and we opt to **** eachother purely to sate some base impulse, and cum on eachother, I don't see the harm, so long as all parties involved are aware of what either expects.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

As far as I think it is about as futile as chasing after the wind if one is viewing and perhaps using someone as a sexual object for ones gratification rather than looking at them in fullness for who they are including personality and so on.

That feels unethical for me.

Do you enter into a meaningful and intellectually stimulating relationship with the girl who serves you coffee? I would imagine not. I would imagine she serves you coffee, you exchange pleasantries and you leave. Which is fine, it would seem stupid to say you are disrespecting her because you haven't asked her her opinion on Libya or global warming. That doesn't mean you don't think she has an opinion or viewpoint or intelligent opinions or view points. But that isn't the nature of your relationship to express them. She is "just" the girl who serves you coffee, and there is nothing wrong with that. You are "just" a guy who buys coffee from her.

Not every relationship people have has to be on the same level as with close friends or family. The lack of this does not imply one believes the other things do not exist.

Ailani Wrong Safari

Ailani Wrong Safari wrote: »

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.

Could you tell me why it is rightly so? this double standard..

Standman wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with the perceived harmlessness of women doing this kind of thing. I've many times seen women being very uncomfortable with being blatantly leered at by men, but have never seen it happen the other way around. I think the idea is that when women are being objectified, many feel as if they are not in control of the situation and feel in danger. Maybe the mindset is that if some guy just sees a woman as some sexy piece of meat, there is little a woman could do to stop his sexual advances if he cannot control himself.

I live in China and trust me, as a western male I'm objectified on a daily basis. Some is sexual, some is not. While it can be uncomfortable (usually only when its officials doing it), mostly its not really such a big deal. There are so many stories (bigger penis, better lovers, being a gentleman, etc) about westerners that most chinese people have some degree of curiousity as to whether theyre true or not. I do speak some Chinese (which most people don't expect us to), and have been in an elevator with 4 women (actually the mothers of some of my students), who proceeded to talk about me, remarking on my body and all those possibles... Very interesting experience.

TBH I think people make too much of this whole issue. When people are not being appreciated there's complaints. When they are being appreciated then theres even more complaints. Sexual objectification is just another way to complain about something that we all want in some quantity.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you tell me why it is rightly so? this double standard..

It'd be right in both cases, and I'm not sure why there wasn't uproar in that case, maybe because men aren't bothered by that kind of objectification on the same scale that women are, or because it'd be frowned upon to be seen to be bothered, I'm not a man, I don't really know. That ad isn't on any more, whether because there were complaints or for some other reason I'm not sure, but yes it is a double standard, that's what I was trying to point out.

raah!

I think the double standard there is due to the history of woman's rights. The same reason there will be uproar for women being objectified and not men is the same reason that a black person will react more to being called a nagger than a white person.

Whether or not this is rightly so is another matter, but the histories of these groups are most definitely the causes of that kind of thinking.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

raah! wrote: »

I think the double standard there is due to the history of woman's rights. The same reason there will be uproar for women being objectified and not men is the same reason that a black person will react more to being called a nagger than a white person.

Whether or not this is rightly so is another matter, but the histories of these groups are most definitely the causes of that kind of thinking.

Yup, for a lot of history women's life choices were severely restricted and in a very real sense we were literally only sexual objects; not valued for our intelligence, creativity or any physical attributes which didn't make us good wives/baby factories. Additionally, for a lot of history reliable contraception didn't exist and pregnancy and childbirth were mortally dangerous things, and women had little or no choice over their reproduction.

I don't think it's the only reason though, I'm in my early twenties so I've never lived in a society where for instance I was legally obliged to stop working if I got married and legally speaking it was impossible for my husband to rape me, I live in a society where discrimination against women (while it still exists) is legislated against, there's slut walks etc., and there's areas where men are discriminated against in favour of women. The playing field is much more even and the issues are much less black and white now, but sexual objectification will still get a lot of young women's back up, and I think it is the issue of consent driving that. Most men are stronger than most women, a man is more likely to rape a woman than vice versa, and men are generally considered to have a much higher libido. So unfortunately, it's still much more acceptable for women to leer at/grab/degrade men, because it seems less threatening. I know men get sexually assaulted too, and I know they get sexually assaulted by women, but rarely in comparison to how often women get sexually assaulted by men, and also I know that only a tiny proportion of men are sexually violent. Still, most women do worry about rape and are aware of it as something they need to be careful of. I'm just guessing here, but I doubt most men are going around with the possibility of being raped by a woman at the back of their minds?

So there's definitely reasons for that double standard and for why feminists will go ape over things like that hunky dory ad, however I don't think those reasons are as valid anymore.

Edit: I'm really trying not be offensive or sound like some kind of stark raving "every man is a potential rapist" wagon here, if any man is offended I'm sorry and it wasn't my intention

Dudess

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

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.

It is their right, and there is nothing wrong with attraction being based on looks (I notice good-looking men; equally I dress up and put on make-up) but it's also the right of others to view emphasis on looks full stop, with little to no regard for personality/character traits, to be shallower than a worm's grave, very teenage, and a sign that not all may be right in the emotional department.

raah!

raah! wrote: »

I think the double standard there is due to the history of woman's rights. The same reason there will be uproar for women being objectified and not men is the same reason that a black person will react more to being called a nagger than a white person.

Whether or not this is rightly so is another matter, but the histories of these groups are most definitely the causes of that kind of thinking.

In China the most common term for foreigners is laowei which is pretty normal and non-offensive.. but there are a number of other words which can be used to describe foreigners which are a lot more offensive (if the person understands the meaning), although TBH its often the word stress that carries the most offense.

Its not the words themselves but the intent behind them. We can usually tell when someone is saying a word with anger/hatred/disgust behind them. Our emotions are carried in our voices and few people can hide that very well.

The problem is that people don't want true equality... In law, in work, in personal relationships, in just about anything. Oh.. many people claim that feminism drives towards equality but there are so many areas in which equality was reached and still the drive continued for more rights.

And this sexual objectification is just another avenue for another drive against men. When women do it to men, its laughed off as not being serious. Because the propoganda machines throw out the belief that women are somehow above such base desire.. that women can't get their kicks that way. But all men do. Wonderful. Its always annoyed me the way that women are individuals but men are a group to be targeted (that we all share the same issues/desires/etc). Awesomely convenient.

TBH its sad that simple attraction can be emphasised into becoming something extreme. In asking a number of good looking female friends (western and asian) about this topic, very few could say that they had felt truly threatened (or objectified in any extreme manner) by male (or female) attention/attraction unless it went beyond simple flirting... But thats a different problem.

I'm curious... do lesbians objectify other women?

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

....In asking a number of good looking female friends (western and asian) about this topic, very few could say that they had felt truly threatened (or objectified in any extreme manner) by male (or female) attention/attraction unless it went beyond simple flirting... But thats a different problem.

I think that's probably where sexual objectification gets most of it's bad press.

I don't see anything wrong with base sexual objectification, in so far as I cannot see how the majority would get through life without sexually objectifying at certain junctures - it does no harm in and of itself. In fact, for the most part, there should be no reason for people to even know they are being objectified unless doing something to deliberately draw such objectification.

I think the negative associations come in where lines are blurred by those who either lack the social graces or gumption and broadcast their sexual objectifications when they aren't/aren't going to be - sometimes very obviously - appreciated or reciprocated by the person being objectified. When people in everyday life say; "I didn't like being sexually objectified" in relation to a particular event, I think they really mean "The thought of being sexually objectified by X repulses me" - which isn't so much a damning indictment of sexual objectification as evidence of one persons inability to read the basic cues of another being dressed up as a dislike of a particular and common behaviour that we all indulge in.

gargleblaster

Sexual objectification, if used to refer to the act of simply appreciating the way someone looks in a sexual way, is a very common behavior and as has been said it is done by nearly everyone without exception, and most people enjoy it when it is done. When I hear the term, I don't think of sexual attraction.

I think of the fact that studies show that the ubiquitous portrayal of women as sexual props is closely linked to eating disorders, sexual dysfunction, body dysmorphism, etc. I think of the studies which show that when women perceive that they are being observed in a sexual manner, their cognitive skills decrease. They talk less about themselves - they talk less overall.

Women internalize society's message that the male gaze is normal and natural, and many have attempted to adopt it for themselves. However, men's cognitive skills do not decrease when they're observed in a sexual manner. They do not talk less about themselves when they are observed in such a way.

No matter how many diet coke ads and other examples of the sexual objectification of men exist - the depiction of men as objects of a female gaze simply does not occur on a scale vast enough to enable men to have any idea from a personal standpoint of what it is like to grow up in that kind of environment.

The effects of this unequal treatment are so deeply woven into the fabric of society that most people don't even see it, let alone question it.

Ickle Magoo

Gah, I had a big post there and my browser decided to close itself...must be trying to tell me something...

Great post gargleblaster, yes, apologies, my post was concentrating purely on base objectification of one individual to another; societally driven, or societally acceptable levels of objectification of women as a gender is another matter - and I think it plays a big part in just how inconsiderate and inappropriate some individual approaches to their own base objectifications are.

ilikepears

gargleblaster wrote: »

Sexual objectification, if used to refer to the act of simply appreciating the way someone looks in a sexual way, is a very common behavior and as has been said it is done by nearly everyone without exception, and most people enjoy it when it is done. When I hear the term, I don't think of sexual attraction.

I think of the fact that studies show that the ubiquitous portrayal of women as sexual props is closely linked to eating disorders, sexual dysfunction, body dysmorphism, etc. I think of the studies which show that when women perceive that they are being observed in a sexual manner, their cognitive skills decrease. They talk less about themselves - they talk less overall.

Women internalize society's message that the male gaze is normal and natural, and many have attempted to adopt it for themselves. However, men's cognitive skills do not decrease when they're observed in a sexual manner. They do not talk less about themselves when they are observed in such a way.

No matter how many diet coke ads and other examples of the sexual objectification of men exist - the depiction of men as objects of a female gaze simply does not occur on a scale vast enough to enable men to have any idea from a personal standpoint of what it is like to grow up in that kind of environment.

The effects of this unequal treatment are so deeply woven into the fabric of society that most people don't even see it, let alone question it.

Very good post especially the bit in bold which I totally agree with. The amount of attention that a women receives in any social interaction with men is very reliant on how pretty she is considered (especially amongst strangers or acquaintances). This is good if your pretty however if you are average you are at a disadvantage. IMO this doesn't happen on a regular basis with men being judged mainly on their looks.

gargleblaster

Ah sorry Ickle, I didn't mean that as a response to your post specifically. That take on objectification comes up in every discussion about sexual objectification I've ever seen.

Ickle Magoo

gargleblaster wrote: »

Ah sorry Ickle, I didn't mean that as a response to your post specifically. That take on objectification comes up in every discussion about sexual objectification I've ever seen.

No, you are absolutely right - I replied about a very specific kind of objectification while ignoring a much bigger issue related to that...lazy response by me.

gargleblaster

gargleblaster wrote: »

No matter how many diet coke ads and other examples of the sexual objectification of men exist - the depiction of men as objects of a female gaze simply does not occur on a scale vast enough to enable men to have any idea from a personal standpoint of what it is like to grow up in that kind of environment.

The effects of this unequal treatment are so deeply woven into the fabric of society that most people don't even see it, let alone question it.

The problem though is that it is women themselves that are creating this situation. Female focus on the physical body, attraction, fashion, "what men think?", etc all drive women to form this kind of environment where simple attraction can be perceived as something far stronger. Its not something that men can change, because we have no control over it. Its a female drive.

The objectification of men doesn't have the same impact because we as men don't care as much as women do. We don't force this situation on each other... women do.

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem though is that it is women themselves that are creating this situation. Female focus on the physical body, attraction, fashion, "what men think?", etc all drive women to form this kind of environment where simple attraction can be perceived as something far stronger. Its not something that men can change, because we have no control over it. Its a female drive.

The objectification of men doesn't have the same impact because we as men don't care as much as women do. We don't force this situation on each other... women do.

TBH, I think that's far too simplistic a way of looking at it. I mean, if you spend hundreds of years valuing a specific attribute of one gender then before long that gender believes that is their most important attribute - or it becomes an acceptable and unquestioned assumption that that is the attribute that will get the most attention and so has to be the attribute that is maintained and highlighted above all others in order for that individual to be successful in society.

If you look at who and why society is where it is - what roles and expectations each gender have and often play to; in this case it's much more of a chicken and egg situation that is ingrained in both genders psyche than women having driven and maintained the level of sexual objectification of women with no drive, involvement, audience or encouragement from men, isn't it?

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

TBH, I think that's far too simplistic a way of looking at it. I mean, if you spend hundreds of years valuing a specific attribute of one gender then before long that gender believes that is their most important attribute - or it becomes an acceptable and unquestioned assumption that that is the attribute that will get the most attention and so has to be the attribute that is maintained and highlighted above all others in order for that individual to be successful in society.

Strange, because when I look at the posts to this thread many of them are pointing at men as the main offenders of sexual objectification towards women... and yet, that in itself is not too simplistic. But saying that women encourage sexual objectification of their own sex, is?

If you look at who and why society is where it is - what roles and expectations each gender have and often play to; in this case it's much more of a chicken and egg situation that is ingrained in both genders psyche than women having driven and maintained the level of sexual objectification of women with no drive, involvement, audience or encouragement from men, isn't it?

Honestly, I don't know... I'm a guy. I've been objectified (sexually and other) during a few periods in my life, especially when I taught middle/high school in girls schools in Korea and China. But I doubt most women would feel that those qualify. [Although I would say that teenagers probably objectify others the strongest) It seems that sexual objectification can only be really felt by women and that men don't really have any true understanding of it.

But I don't mean to say that men have no involvement or responsibility in the creation and maintaince of sexual objectification. We do have a definite involvement in the development of it. There has to be some involvement. But I do say that women themselves encourage sexual objectification. The manner of the advertising, education, etc that women have decided should be applied to girls/women points to it.

Standman

gargleblaster wrote: »

Sexual objectification, if used to refer to the act of simply appreciating the way someone looks in a sexual way, is a very common behavior and as has been said it is done by nearly everyone without exception, and most people enjoy it when it is done. When I hear the term, I don't think of sexual attraction.

I think of the fact that studies show that the ubiquitous portrayal of women as sexual props is closely linked to eating disorders, sexual dysfunction, body dysmorphism, etc. I think of the studies which show that when women perceive that they are being observed in a sexual manner, their cognitive skills decrease. They talk less about themselves - they talk less overall.

Women internalize society's message that the male gaze is normal and natural, and many have attempted to adopt it for themselves. However, men's cognitive skills do not decrease when they're observed in a sexual manner. They do not talk less about themselves when they are observed in such a way.

No matter how many diet coke ads and other examples of the sexual objectification of men exist - the depiction of men as objects of a female gaze simply does not occur on a scale vast enough to enable men to have any idea from a personal standpoint of what it is like to grow up in that kind of environment.

The effects of this unequal treatment are so deeply woven into the fabric of society that most people don't even see it, let alone question it.

Good post. It's something I wrestle with myself is that the objectification of women always seems to have negative connotations to me. It get's to the point where I actually feel sometimes I'm doing something wrong or perverted when I find a woman sexy or if I check someone out. I don't treat women differently if I find them attractive or whatever but somewhere along the way I've picked up the idea that appreciating a woman in a sexual way is something that is inappropriate unless the woman specifically invites it, i.e. she shows interest in me first.

gargleblaster

Standman wrote: »

Good post. It's something I wrestle with myself is that the objectification of women always seems to have negative connotations to me. It get's to the point where I actually feel sometimes I'm doing something wrong or perverted when I find a woman sexy or if I check someone out. I don't treat women differently if I find them attractive or whatever but somewhere along the way I've picked up the idea that appreciating a woman in a sexual way is something that is inappropriate unless the woman specifically invites it, i.e. she shows interest in me first.

That's sad. It's unfortunate that the societal dysfunction about sexuality has made it so that you've attached negative feelings to any appreciation of an attractive woman.

As long as you're not making someone uncomfortable, I can see no reason to feel bad about admiring someone's good looks.