Sexual objectification

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.

donfers

it's garbage really

how can one tell the difference between acceptable sexual attraction and the apparently unacceptable sexual objectification


the easy answer is when the object becomes uncomfortable but that of course varies greatly depending and is not always easy to read

so the answer perhaps could be when the object clearly signals that he/she is feeling uncomfortable - but again circumstances sometimes dictate that they can't relay that message or that that message is not understood

now it truly is a mess


you have guys crossing the road late at night or deliberatly slowing down their pace or going in the opposite direction of where they want to go just to avoid walking behind a girl at night time, a kind of ludicrous pre-emptive maneouvre that surely confirms how utterly indefineable this whole area is

on top of that you get guys who are failing to engage with women, unable to socialise with them or flirt or even look them in the eye for fear of upsetting some pc more

I understand that women have been sexually objectified for generations and that sexual representations of women are almost omnipresent and that that can of course have consequences that only women can appreciate but the other side of the coin that so many fail to acknowledge is the constant beating of the drum on this issue blurs the lines between unacceptable sexual objectification (how long can he stare at you? if he is more physically attractive does the feeling of being sexually objectified not set in until 40 seconds has passed instead of the usual 20?) and the age-old sexual politics of boy chases girl, which in turn has resulted in a new generation of men who are so unsure of where the boundaries lie that they are paralysed into basically shunning women, not because they don't like them but merely because they don't know how much they are allowed to like them, and just as men can't understand how sexually objectified women can feel, this is an area where a women can't appreciate how a man feels


the result is we all have to drink copious amounts of alcohol before we can even look each other in the eye - some women want to know why romance is dead, why there are so few romantic guys out there anymore, the answer is that guys can't tell the difference anymore between sexual objectification and notions like romance and flirting and paying a woman a compliment - the object of one's affection has such varying interpretations of what constitutes all of the above that sometimes the safest option is to do nothing


the overanalysis of every possible detail of even the most human of all possible pursuits, finding a partner, is leading to a joyless existence for all of us, thankfully this practice is confined to a rather sneering embittered minority corner of academia/blogsphere and most of us (men and women) are happy enough to get on with the party without worrying about how any likely word, deed or gesture may possibly offend

gargleblaster

A joyless existence for all of us? Such hyperbole isn't helpful imo.

Many people of both sexes manage to be able to negotiate the line between acceptable and sexist behavior with little difficulty. It really isn't that complicated.

donfers

gargleblaster wrote: »

A joyless existence for all of us? Such hyperbole isn't helpful imo.

Many people of both sexes manage to be able to negotiate the line between acceptable and sexist behavior with little difficulty. It really isn't that complicated.

you're right, that was a tad hyperbolic, i should have stated joyless at times (i.e. while listening to unjustified and misplaced whingeing)

i also agree most of us do negotiate the lines of sexual politicking rather well

i disagree that it isn't that complicated, i think it is and that some of us fall foul of the "rules" which aren't always consistent or plain to see.

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

Do you deny men are the main offenders of objectification towards women or the main part men have played in sexual objectification of women being viewed as something that is worth encouraging?

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure it's so much that objectification can only really be felt by women but I've yet to meet a man who has instantly been able to tell me the difference between the two - and why there is such a stark difference....

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

That sound remarkably like having lived many hundreds of years in paternalistic, misogynistic society having very recently given women the opportunity for education and political input and social reformation, it's a case of sitting back arms crossed and considering women to blame for the phenomena both existing and continuing...that's exactly what I meant when I said it was simplifying a very complex process.

gargleblaster

donfers wrote: »

joyless at times (i.e. while listening to unjustified and misplaced whingeing.

Aaaaaaand we're done.

donfers

gargleblaster wrote: »

Aaaaaaand we're done.

apologies if you thought that was referring to you

In any case I agree with you and Ickle that the majority of us are hopefully savvy enough to know when to turn on the charms and when our "charms" are anything but charming, so back off


however the very existence of this thread and threads like this suggests there is a grey area out there that causes problems for both sexes

"no means yes"

"play hard to get"

"feign disinterest"

and all that mindfeckery contributes to it

I certain don't excuse the mindless cretins who abuse these misunderstandings to make the other feel uncomfortable or worse

all i would say is that we should be aware that definitions of terms like sexual objectification are intrinsically personal and subjective and thus problematic as they are inconsistent - we cannot make blanket statements about what is or isn't acceptable as it is entirely down to the individual rendering discussions like this moot


if an unattractive overweight 45 year old woman on a hen night grabbed a guy's arse on a dancefloor he could claim sexual objectification (although most probably he'd laugh it off, easy of course for him to laugh it off as a male as he doesn't have to encounter this behaviour as frequently as women though, i accept that_

if some tall leggy pretty blonde does the same then sexual objectification is probably less likely to be at the foremost of the guy's thought as he thinks he's in here

point being, both women are guilty of the same offense but are judged entirely differently based on the guy's subjective interpretation of their looks (I suppose you could argue that 45 year old woman should be more aware her grope is less likely to be appreciated and that maybe is the more productive topic - how aware is a person of their own "market"?)

yes it's a simplistic example and some of us would of course reject this type of behaviour no matter who it came from but but but the reality is there can never be a consensus on when sexual objectification begins and ends except in our own minds and as others aren't mindreaders we must express our disapproval when it occurs while at the same time be aware of how inconsistent our interpetations of where that line lies is - hence the folks who fail to appreciate our right to be inconsistent

Typh

I think people should disabuse themselves of the notion that bdd and eating disorders are exclusive to the fairer sex. In contemporary Ireland we all exist within the same media vacuum which feeds us images and plays on our insecurities and aspirations alike. It gets to both sexes, and if we're making unfounded sweeping statements, I think a lot of guys do feel unhappy or in some way inferior when they see the conveyor line of glistening male models coming out of continental Europe, or just Brad Pitt walking around topless, but are emotionally illiterate to the point that they're afraid to voice this physical insecurity for fear of sounding either vain, or effeminate. The adage about guys not talking about their feelings plays into this, and perhaps lends itself partially to the gulf of opinion between either gender on this issue. Why isn't it acceptable for a guy to wail 'Why doesn't she think I'm beautiful?!' while lines of black mascara flood down his face...

I feel as if this argument, for me anyway, is unnecessarily obfuscated when you’re putting sexual objectification as a static idea on one side of the weighing scales, and finding someone physically attractive on the other, and they somehow find themselves equal. Why should we demonise finding someone physically appealing when, truth be told, on first impression, you don’t fall in love with someone’s soul, and not everyone wears their emotions on their sleeves for the world to see.
I also don’t necessarily buy into the idea that a girl who is viewed as hot will go home and climb into the shower and hug her knees in foetal position for an hour because a guy ‘scanned her form.'

I’m not saying that lads glaring and leering isn’t an unpleasant form of objectification, I just think the objectification needs to be placed within a context. While I agree with donfers on the fact that sexual politics is an intimidating domain for many men, and women alike, I think people are being over-analytical of the minutiae of every male-male, male-female, female-female encounter, and there should be nothing wrong with lust in and of itself.
Taking into account the endless abuse involving sexual objectification in a historical and cultural context, to this very day, will make the debate too much of a one-way street if people are trying to look at more contemporary examples, like Coppers for example, the den of inequity where sexual objectification will never die.

I stand by what I said about the importance of contextualising the objectification. It shouldn’t always be a negative thing.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do you deny men are the main offenders of objectification towards women or the main part men have played in sexual objectification of women being viewed as something that is worth encouraging?

Well we only have two sexes here... so if women aren't doing it then it must be men. But you're asking me something different here to what you've quoted. I asked in regards to your thinking it being too simplistic to assign such responsibility for sexual objectification to women.... but its ok to assign it to men. Instead you threw back two questions...

I'm not sure it's so much that objectification can only really be felt by women but I've yet to meet a man who has instantly been able to tell me the difference between the two - and why there is such a stark difference....

I've yet to meet a girl/woman that describes sexual objectification the same way or even close to the same way, unless you're talking about simple sexual attraction taken personally and incorrectly...

(Since this thread started I've been asking this question in my university classes to both Asian and Western girls. I've gotten the Chinese teachers to explain for me, haha)

That sound remarkably like having lived many hundreds of years in paternalistic, misogynistic society having very recently given women the opportunity for education and political input and social reformation, it's a case of sitting back arms crossed and considering women to blame for the phenomena both existing and continuing...that's exactly what I meant when I said it was simplifying a very complex process.

This is more of the stance that its only suddenly and recently that women have gained the ability to influence the future & development of their sex in society. Women have always been able to influence events. There are plenty of women throughout history who influenced men in power to limit the freedoms of other women in their own societies...

Its also interesting that I say that both sexes are involved in the development of sexual objectification, and you think I'm blaming women...

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Well we only have two sexes here... so if women aren't doing it then it must be men. But you're asking me something different here to what you've quoted. I asked in regards to your thinking it being too simplistic to assign such responsibility for sexual objectification to women.... but its ok to assign it to men. Instead you threw back two questions...

I don't think it's too simplistic to assign responsibility to women for their own sexual objectification up to present date - I think it's just plain wrong. I think if we look at society on a time line then women having both the power and influence to make great changes in societal norms has only happened in the very recent past...and it's not static, this will continue to happen, we are after all only looking today at a snapshot of societal norms as they exist in 2011.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've yet to meet a girl/woman that describes sexual objectification the same way or even close to the same way, unless you're talking about simple sexual attraction taken personally and incorrectly...

Or those who have failed to learn basic social etiquettes - but are we discussing how single individuals interpret the phrase "sexual objectification" or are you taking a wider anthropological view of the concept?

Deleted User wrote: »

This is more of the stance that its only suddenly and recently that women have gained the ability to influence the future & development of their sex in society. Women have always been able to influence events. There are plenty of women throughout history who influenced men in power to limit the freedoms of other women in their own societies...

I think that's missing the obvious if not rather disingenuous. There have been a handful of women who have carried the kind of power and responsibility that many thousands of men have. Historically the treatment of the genders have not been even or fair - right up to present day. That changes the dynamics and the power balance within society and those dynamics take many generations to change. It's not as simple as saying look, women over the course of history have done X, Y and Z so women are responsible for their own objectification.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its also interesting that I say that both sexes are involved in the development of sexual objectification, and you think I'm blaming women...

It's not so much I think you are blaming women as you are refusing to accept the part men play in it all...in favour of re-writing history with women having always had the power and influence to decide how society operates and what their position in society is.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think it's too simplistic to assign responsibility to women for their own sexual objectification up to present date - I think it's just plain wrong.

And therein we have our disagreement. While I feel that men (as a sex) have some responsibility in creating and maintaining sexual objectification, you seem to believe that they (men) have almost total responsibility with only a very small part resting with women themselves....

I think if we look at society on a time line then women having both the power and influence to make great changes in societal norms has only happened in the very recent past...and it's not static, this will continue to happen, we are after all only looking today at a snapshot of societal norms as they exist in 2011.

Great changes, aye... but if you generally look at history there have been very few great changes in society prior to WW2... Society previously changed in small movements. Feminism really changed all of that, although its returning to small changes in everything else.

You're looking for big changes where there have been very few of them for either sex.

Or those who have failed to learn basic social etiquettes - but are we discussing how single individuals interpret the phrase "sexual objectification" or are you taking a wider anthropological view of the concept?

The point I'm making is that women themselves can't really agree what sexual objectification is so "I'm not sure it's so much that objectification can only really be felt by women but I've yet to meet a man who has instantly been able to tell me the difference between the two"...

I think that's missing the obvious if not rather disingenuous. There have been a handful of women who have carried the kind of power and responsibility that many thousands of men have. Historically the treatment of the genders have not been even or fair - right up to present day. That changes the dynamics and the power balance within society and those dynamics take many generations to change. It's not as simple as saying look, women over the course of history have done X, Y and Z so women are responsible for their own objectification.

Ahh well if we're talking solely about the people that made the changes then indeed we are only talking about a minority for both sexes. It has fallen on the majority to maintain the changes that were previously made. Very few people have the determination, vision and courage to challenge (and actually change) society... There were more opportunities for men, but opportunities existed for women too. They just didn't take them.

I could also point out that far more men have been killed, tortured, or lost everything in the process of seeking to challenge and change society than women... but I suspect you would shrug it off. Challenging society has always been a big risk, moreso, prior to this century.

t's not so much I think you are blaming women as you are refusing to accept the part men play in it all...in favour of re-writing history with women having always had the power and influence to decide how society operates and what their position in society is.

I have repeatedly said that men play a part in it. I just disagree with assigning so much responsibility to men. Instead, you seek to point to extremes. If I say that women could have chosen to risk everything as men did, then I'm changing history and dismissing the restrictions that women lived under. IF I point out that for centuries some women chose to restrict other women for religious, politicial, or even for their own games, then I'm removing responsibility for men... Hell, I wonder if you can even acknowledge the numbers of women who chose freely to oppose feminism because they didn't want social equality..

Either way, I'm going to be in the wrong because I don't believe in excusing women from maintaining a society that, well, maintains certain beliefs to limit other women.

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Either way, I'm going to be in the wrong because I don't believe in excusing women from maintaining a society that, well, maintains certain beliefs to limit other women.

Sorry for the condensed reply but it's really all the same point.

I don't know what requires excusing, really. A society is created, over many generations - the way that people think and what they accept as the norm or what they think should be acceptable is moulded by the political, social, religious and societal expectations of the time and that they grew up with - in ireland some of those influences were so restricting and powerful that irish society still feels the ramifications today. It is in part thanks to those influences that ireland lags behind so many other western countries in law, social policy and general societal expectation reformation. And of course, suffrage, feminism, etc have only existed for a fraction of the time that paternalistic and misogynistic society has - and societal attitudes reflect that.

It's not a matter of blame - the historical social pressures and influences do nothing other than offer a social commentary and give some insight into why irish society exists as it does now...and part of that is accepting that many beliefs and acceptable social norms are a product of their generation and the societal influences exerted on them; rather than a deliberate and erudite gender driven [or suppressed!] behaviour.

philologos

Ickle Magoo: It would be historical revisionism in the case of Ireland I think to say that sexual objectification was widely promoted through the political, social, religious and societal expectations. In other threads it is noted that Irish society say in the 1950's or 1960's was prudish. They would have a point I suspect. What has happened now is the complete opposite. Sexuality is a pervasive topic, one can't get away from it, and arguably it has become too pervasive in society both in the Irish context and the broader one. I don't for a second believe that the sexual exploitation belongs in the underlying influence of 1950's - 1960's or before but rather in the seismic shift that occurred in recent history in terms of how people understand and express sexuality in society.

If I've interpreted your post wrong let me know.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: It would be historical revisionism in the case of Ireland I think to say that sexual objectification was widely promoted through the political, social, religious and societal expectations. In other threads it is noted that Irish society say in the 1950's or 1960's was prudish.

Yes, that's my point. It's all very recent history & it takes time to change mindsets that have been many generations in the making.

Klas made the point that a definition of sexual objectification cannot be agreed upon universally by "women". My point is sexual objectification is viewed differently by women because not all people or societies have or have had the same political, religious and societal pressures - and likewise women and men have been assigned different roles and accepted roles according to the local pressures and assumed gender/religious/political/etc norms of their day, usually heavily influenced by those of preceding generations.

And likewise for his point re women taking a great portion of "blame" for how much sexual objectification permeates society. If you do not give people, or genders, the right to education or entry to the political arena and have them live for generations with stiflingly restrictive roles in society or face some kind of castigation or backlash which carries on to this day - just ask any outspoken woman about the kind of comments they face that their male counterparts are never subjected to - then you can no more hold them responsible for the situation they learn to live with or play their part in than you can blame african nations or india for not immediately objecting to and halting colonialism.

Typh

Kind of an interesting side-note to mention when talking about how sexuality within societies have changed so exponentially in the last… say 40-60 years, when we were, at least viewed as, an incredibly insular, narrow-minded nation when it came to expressing sexuality. This ties somewhat into the discussion in tGC about male sexuality and the modern male, and the impact technology, and availability of access, has altered social perception on so many issues. Talk about immodesty and impropriety back in the day and it involved flashing an ankle. These days you could wear a napkin as a skirt, and people wouldn’t bat an eye-lid. You think about homosexuality these days and it’s often just a matter of ‘love knows no gender,’ whereas years ago it would meet an obscenity trial for sodomy.
One thing I got from that guy Michel Foucault was that there is, and will be, an endless human fascination with the perverse and the forbidden. In the past it led to undergrounds and the fabrication of taboos and notions of obscenity, if it meant controlling, or morally condemning these things, yet they were always there. The sexual plethora these days, for a lot of people, and societies has literally been an avalanche of unique, different, often incredibly niche, often incredibly unpopular interests. It’s all a bit Harm Principle, if it doesn’t impinge or impact negatively upon your life, it’s fine, which, for the most part is what it should be. I would most likely avert my gaze If someone was shoving a hamster up themselves, or unhinging their jaw to facilitate equine pleasure, but that’s just another form of sexual expression so I’m choosing to ignore the obvious animal rights violations here.

A lot of people are moving on from the idea of sexual ‘normality’ on a linear scale, and I have to say, it’s branched out to the extent that it’s quite literally a tree of sexual expression at this stage. I think it’s good we’re moving on from standard missionary anyway. Sexuality is one of the most natural things in the world, and it shouldn’t be seen as otherwise. Apologies if this was OT, but it plays vaguely into public perception.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sorry for the condensed reply but it's really all the same point.

I actually don't think so. You're reducing it to a simple point to avoid responding to each aspect. Just as you're reducing everything to the point where women are completely innocent of objectification either the growth in society in the past or in the future.

I don't know what requires excusing, really. A society is created, over many generations - the way that people think and what they accept as the norm or what they think should be acceptable is moulded by the political, social, religious and societal expectations of the time and that they grew up with - in ireland some of those influences were so restricting and powerful that irish society still feels the ramifications today. It is in part thanks to those influences that ireland lags behind so many other western countries in law, social policy and general societal expectation reformation. And of course, suffrage, feminism, etc have only existed for a fraction of the time that paternalistic and misogynistic society has - and societal attitudes reflect that.

Which does very little to address what I posted. Its just a disclaimer providing a background to prevent responsibility resting anywhere close to women.

It's not a matter of blame - the historical social pressures and influences do nothing other than offer a social commentary and give some insight into why irish society exists as it does now...and part of that is accepting that many beliefs and acceptable social norms are a product of their generation and the societal influences exerted on them; rather than a deliberate and erudite gender driven [or suppressed!] behaviour.

I'm not looking to assign blame. Rather I'm looking for a bit of balance in all of this. This topic is going to always be gender driven simply because men wielded all the obvious power in the past. The problem I see though is that while women rights have been achieved in most areas, we get the excuse that these things take time, and that society needs to change accordingly. In time. But we (men) are still objectifying women. Handy that.

Klas made the point that a definition of sexual objectification cannot be agreed upon universally by "women". My point is sexual objectification is viewed differently by women because not all people or societies have or have had the same political, religious and societal pressures - and likewise women and men have been assigned different roles and accepted roles according to the local pressures and assumed gender/religious/political/etc norms of their day, usually heavily influenced by those of preceding generations.

I must admit I don't quite understand that.... Are you saying that women don't agree on sexual objectification because of the various roles that were assigned to both men/women?

And likewise for his point re women taking a great portion of "blame" for how much sexual objectification permeates society.

Actually, I pointed that towards men, not women. Taking the blame, that is. And we're still taking the blame regardless of the changes that have been made in the last 30 years....

If you do not give people, or genders, the right to education or entry to the political arena and have them live for generations with stiflingly restrictive roles in society or face some kind of castigation or backlash which carries on to this day

The interesting thing I find about all this is that its rare that I see any reason why womens liberation was so completely stifled until recent times. OH, there's the mention of the laws/social pressures to limit women to certain areas of work/daily life, but then those restrictions were, in part, there 30 years ago... And then I have to consider all those areas that men were/are prevented from joining because they were the domains of women... teaching, nursing, etc.

Three years ago I came back to Ireland after doing kindergarten teaching abroad... I sought work here, and was told "unofficially" from a number of sources that there was zero chance of a male getting such a position... regardless of educational background, social status etc. I could sue them legally for sexual discrimination but it still wouldn't get me work...

- just ask any outspoken woman about the kind of comments they face that their male counterparts are never subjected to -

I don't really have to if I think of building sites, or basic labourers... but if we're talking general people.. I'm sure it happens a bit. But then you could ask most guys in Ireland the kind of abuse they have received from Irish women over the last 20 years. If a guy said it to me It would be acceptable for me to hit them, but its not acceptable to do the same to women, even when they continue to mouth off.

Frankly, mens comments tend to lack imagination. You should listen to some Australian girls let go at some poor bloke.

then you can no more hold them responsible for the situation they learn to live with or play their part in than you can blame african nations or india for not immediately objecting to and halting colonialism.

Bit of a jump there, the comparison with colonialism... Considering we're talking military/economic/social/and political relationships which are lacking in this situation. I hold women responsible based on the actions and inactions of their sex. You seem to have this belief of female innocence, and yet its quite easy to find examples of women in positions of power/influence blockiing the advancement of womens rights either in small areas or larger circles.

The point is that both sexes are responsible for both the equality issues, and also sexual objectification. Is there a balance of guilt? I have no idea. But then I'm tired of arguments that demand equal rights for women, but then ask us to bow out because they didn't have the same chances as men.

The funny thing though is that most people I speak to nowadays did/do have the same chances as men (if not more... simply because they're female).

cat_rant

Example of Sexual Objectifiation -

This is a PM I recieved from some randomer - now banned

******
Banned

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3
Adverts | Friends
nice
Hello, Just want to know going by your name does that mean you have a nice pussy, ??????

Offensive _ Yes
Acceptable _ No
Respectful _No
Warranted _ No, like I said don't know this person from Adam. Obviously no interest in my personality.

Both women and men are guilty of objectifying others. I am sure we are all guilty of it to some extent. When we comment on a good looking person and say "oh I wouldn't kick them out of bed for eating crisps" when you have no intention of getting know said persons personality that is objectifying some one.

Now to be the object of someone's affections, if its reciprocated can be a wonderful thing.

I suppose it all comes down to consideration, respect and the nature of the exchange between the parties involved.

donfers

cat_rant wrote: »

Example of Sexual Objectifiation -

This is a PM I recieved from some randomer - now banned

******
Banned

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3
Adverts | Friends
nice
Hello, Just want to know going by your name does that mean you have a nice pussy, ??????

Offensive _ Yes
Acceptable _ No
Respectful _No
Warranted _ No, like I said don't know this person from Adam. Obviously no interest in my personality.

Both women and men are guilty of objectifying others. I am sure we are all guilty of it to some extent. When we comment on a good looking person and say "oh I wouldn't kick them out of bed for eating crisps" when you have no intention of getting know said persons personality that is objectifying some one.

Now to be the object of someone's affections, if its reciprocated can be a wonderful thing.

I suppose it all comes down to consideration, respect and the nature of the exchange between the parties involved.

we all objectify each other (i hate that word "objectify", it's an inevitable and necessary part of life that it occurs but complainants cling to the word as it works more effectively to illustrate their yearning for victimisation than say "looked at", we cannot know each others hidden depths from the beginning, all i got to begin with is how you look and i will naturally form a judgement instantly based on that alone, deal with it, we all do it), it's how we do it that counts

sexual objectification is grand

however not knowing when to stop doing it or when it's inappropriate to do it is not grand

finally your post raises an interesting point - sexual objectification without even seeing them; that's a new one

18AD

donfers wrote: »

we all objectify each other (i hate that word "objectify", it's an inevitable and necessary part of life that it occurs but complainants cling to the word as it works more effectively to illustrate their yearning for victimisation than say "looked at", we cannot know each others hidden depths from the beginning, all i got to begin with is how you look and i will naturally form a judgement instantly based on that alone, deal with it, we all do it), it's how we do it that counts

sexual objectification is grand

however not knowing when to stop doing it or when it's inappropriate to do it is not grand

finally your post raises an interesting point - sexual objectification without even seeing them; that's a new one

On your first point I'd like to disagree. When we see someone else is it not the case that we see them as people, i.e. living, feeling beings. We don't encounter people as objects at all. The term itself, objectify, implies an active, whether conscious or subconscious, objectifying of a person who is already not an object. Otherwise we would be meeting people as objects and then subjectifying them as we became more aware of them being living people. Subjects come first, objectification after.

Personally I think sexual objectification is fine, as long as both parties involved are aware and accepting of what is happening, i.e. neither are rude, lying or overstepping acceptable social norms. Of course you're free to do those things at your own risk, my fickle arguments will hardly persuade anyone otherwise. But I guess if you're allowing for both to decide it's not really objectification.

Do we not objectify people all the time anyway? When you go to the shop and you just pay the person at the til are they not simply a means to an end or do you really consider their existential constitution?

Typh

'Do we not objectify people all the time anyway? When you go to the shop and you just pay the person at the til are they not simply a means to an end or do you really consider their existential constitution?'

I must admit I found the above post something of a contradiction, but it’s most likely me being pedantic, and quite possibly wrong. The first paragraph infers that ‘we don’t encounter people as objects at all,’ ‘subjects coming first, objectification after,’ yet you make the example in your final line about how we objectify whoever works the till as a mechanism through which we buy goods as an off-hand example of everyday objectification. I don't smile at an ATM and say 'thank you' when it gives me money but I do whenever someone hands me something I've just bought. While I echo the sentiment I don’t think we so passively view people as cogs in the machine to that extent.
This might just be me, but when you imply objectification is an active, aware process that may or may not be monitored by unconscious motives, I think a distinction needs to be made underlining whether it’s an unconscious impulse or, in a way, a choice to objectify or not to objectify. Or both?In everyday examples I don’t see viewing people as a means to an end is wrong by the by, it they’re quite literally utilised to meet a certain end. Jobs are performed to serve a function and achieve an end after all. As long as you don’t sit your cup and saucer on an electrician’s back while he fixes a socket because you mistook him for a table.

This may be an outlandish, off-topic thing to add to the thread but I feel that quite the worst thing about objectification, in this day and age, is how a lot of people have been desensitised to the idea of an individual suffering if it doesn’t impact or influence their lives in any way. An example would be snuff sites where you literally witness the last seconds of a human beings life. If you go onto youtube you can view how people react when watching them. Some genuinely laugh, some shy away, some squeal with glee, and I feel that an integral part to this is how many of us have been desensitised to the notion of viewing people not as human beings, but as things that make you laugh, or unsettle you, or shock you into a fit of giggles, as opposed to animals that live and breathe and cry. Animals with souls shrieking in their chests and quite possibly families at home.
Notable mention goes to the old Amnesty International ads where you see infants starving and absolute waste-lands dotted with emaciated families. It’s selfish of me to say this but when I’ve noticed a trend of people switching channel immediately, maybe it’s a misinterpretation of their motive, but often it just comes off as apathetic. It seemed to me at times that the suffering of a lot of people who experience this seemingly inescapable poverty is often objectified as a ‘foregone conclusion’ or something that, in some manner or form, has become an abstract thing that doesn’t necessarily manifest itself in the world, when the absolute inverse is true. These things should upset people. I mean, at times I do it myself, but the way I see it, selfish people only perceive their own struggles, and for me to dust these images off my shoulder with blithe indifference because it’s uncomfortable for me to think about, while convenient at times, it something I don’t want to make a habit of.

18AD

You're quite right about my contradictive comment. I was confused as to what actually counted as objectification, e.g. the shop attendant used for a purpose or a woman/man used for a purpose. I wouldn hold though, that subjects come first and objectification after.

But when people see these things are they not denying their own empathy by changing the channel for example? They are not objectifying but simply denying their own empathic subjectivity and connection to others. i.e. How dare you make me feel an emotion I don't want. Maybe this desensitisation isn't removing the empathy but more changing our views on whether empathy is an acceptable emotion?

paddyandy

The Woman you have lots of fun with may not be the one to make a good wife and mother she's just a "Fun girl" like a great "party Type"and that's all.There are lot's of great people you'll meet in pubs but never take them home??? SEX is not the same as Love but the advertising industry tries to confuse people all the time to make their minds more pliable for suggestions.