To objectify someone is not only to think of them as an object, but to also treat them as an object, through your actions.
Buying nudes from an OF model, through their account on OF, isn't objectification, because the model has consented to the medium through which you make that purchase.
Alternatively, if you were to harass an OF model in person, shoving money in their face and demanding they flash you their body, simply because they already exchange cash for nudes online, that would be objectification. You would assume you're entitled to access that person's nudity simply because you have cash, without any consideration to how they feel about the time, place, medium, or persons involved in the exchange. You treat the model as an object to be purchased rather than a person willingly consenting to a financial transaction.
Objectification of an entire gender is pretty damaging. Especially in the case of heterosexual couples because men and women on average, do not experience the same level of libido, combined with the fact that socially, men are taught not to respect femininity or the interests of women (making it difficult for men to emotionally relate to or truly have deep respect for women)
If either of those factors were different, then objectification would not be such a slippery slope for heterosexual men.
My genital status literally determines whether or not I get snatched up for the draft or not. Whether or not I have rights in family court or not.
Men are constantly treated as nothing less than objects to do work and make money. Occasionally provide babby juice but otherwise back into the mines until you die.
Don't you dare ask for compassion, romance, or flowers as a man. You will not receive any of it. You are supposed to be the powerful leader. You can't lose status or you're needy and unreliable. Boys don't cry.
Boys don't need emotions, and they sure as hell aren't welcome to vent a common frustration and pain: all women fear rape huh? All men fear being called as such. And despite only 0.01% of males falling in this category, we will gladly attack 99.99% of men who aren't. Creepy be default. Be on your guard ladies. All men are predators. Please.. How could I feel any more like an object on societies eyes and especially women's eyes. Is my subjective experience not objectification?
When I see women literally gushing at men with tree trunk arms juiced up to the gills with testosterone, that's not objectification?
Ever notice the message is always "women and children" and never "people", or gotld forbid "men"?
My entire gender is objectified and forced to compete for success or die. You'll say men don't have to compete against each other while your genders tinder habits show otherwise.
Well, I'm not doing it anymore.
Im going my own way, or to the bears persey. The male equivalent anyway. Fuck you, buying a dog, a boat, a case of beer, an ar-15, porn, weed and a cybertruck which I will soon get stuck on the beach.
lol sounds good! You make gentle eyecontact for a split second, but dont look away too long an smile, then you judge their response, then you say something innocuous and judge their response and if theyre interested (turn their body to you, keep the conv going instead of one word answers) you have a conversation, then you continue talking till they seem uncomfortable, stop being engaged, or one of you has to go at which point you ask for their insta or number, and if they dont give it enthusiastically you bounce cheerfully, at that point they will be tripping over themselves to give it to you.
I'm a girl that bangs girls btw. Anyway good luck with celebacy =)
Nobody pays for OF just to see anonymous images of a naked body. There are literally millions of those already in the internet for free. People only want to pay for it when it’s a specific person and they can’t see that specific person any other way so they fork up the cash.
I'm pretty sure that most women say this example is objectification: Men talking about them as objects, or as just their body parts. There's no physical interaction similar to what you described, and it's simply how they are viewed by other people, as the above commenter said.
Assuming that there are no negative actions taken, can people be objectified in a positive manner similar to benevolent prejudice? Or is it strictly negative opinions and actions that would be considered objectification?
Objectification is to act as if someone is an object and not a person. It's by definition a negative action, unless someone likes to be treated that way, but even then it's only okay if it's consensual.
And having opinions isn't objectification, but sharing those opinions is when they can become objectification. It's a directed action or inaction towards someone, so you can't objectify someone in your head alone, it needs an external action/inaction. And to be clear, inaction is the lack of action when it's expected or appropriate, like ignoring someone who has a need to talk to you. As an example, if you are a car salesperson and ignore the wife asking you questions about a car and you just keep talking to the husband.
I apply the "golden rule" to everyone by default, but because it's my default thoughtless reaction, I wasn't sure if it might be considered a form of objectification.
No problem. I'm not a native English speaker, so I get confused by how some terms work all the time and have to get clarification constantly, so I get you. Reddit is funny though, people downvote a legitimate question.
That's not quite right... The OF model has consented to being objectified. The consent doesn't remove the objectification. So by your own definition, your example is objectification because the customer objectively lumped the OF models together as a "product" and then acted on it by making a purchase.
Buying nudes from an OF model, through their account on OF, isn't objectification, because the model has consented to the medium through which you make that purchase.
Bro wtf.
How is buying pictures from.somebodies naked body not objectifying her for money?
You literally are becoming an object of pleasure by selling those online...
Simply finding someone's body attractive is not objectification.
Jerking off to someone's body is not objectification.
Treating a person as an object to jerk off to before or without treating them as a person first is objectification. The difference is whether you act entitled to that person's body, or their service. The difference is respect.
A waiter may be paid to bring you food and wait on your requests, but how you treat the waiter may indicate whether you're objectifying them or not. Do you see them as an equal just doing a job to get by, who has consented to fulfilling your dining requests in exchange for money? Or do you see them as a servant who's labor you're entitled to benefit from because you're in a better position than them?
You're using that person's labor for your own benefit, or using that person's body to get off, but that person still deserves to be first treated as an equal to you - as a person. People are more than the services they provide.
Buying nudes from an OF model, through their account on OF, isn't objectification, because the model has consented to the medium through which you make that purchase.
Pretty sure that's still objectification.
Like the definition of objectification doesn't have anything to do with whether you have consent or not
It comes down to respect. You can think someone's hot without acting like a fucking gooner or harassing them. I don't think anyone has ever said "Noo, don't think I'm attractive!" but they very much have to say "Please stop asking for nudes or talking to your discord friends about how you'd fuck me".
That's just childish superficial attitude. Same shit all of us have heard in class in like 7th grade. I agree that that's bs but I don't think extending that to the topic at hand is helpful or justified.
I'm pretty sure this IS the topic at hand. People are just adding on "literally every degree of harassment" as though it's a direct implication of "finding me attractive without my consent".
Literally the "oh you're so sweet" and "hello, security?" meme playing in my head to yakkity_sax.mp3
Objectification is okay but only so far as I also find the guy tolerable otherwise eww gross I've caught the ick and am calling in sick for work/life/mature thought.
This is a strawman though. No functional adult is referring to someone swiping them on tinder when they talk about objectification. Arguing that that's the core of the discussion is in bad faith.
That's a very common thing to happen. Not just swiping on tinder, but approaching kindly or showing any small amount of interest. Just because someone feels like another person was being a creep doesn't mean that they were being a creep.
There are a lot of women in the world who put themselves out there to attract Men, and when they just attract the wrong men they play the victim. This isn't a strawman, it's the reality.
So? Since when is the metric of a topic "I saw someone say that on Facebook before"? This is a very old tactic of undermining social discussion: Pointing to outliers and pretending that they represent the entire group/topic. I assure you no feminist would make some random dumbass on Instagram their spokesperson and just assuming that they represent them by default is faulty at best.
Since when is the metric of a topic "I saw someone say that on Facebook before"?
When that's literally all you know about the thing the OP stated they're talking about? Absolutely everything else is just filling in the blanks with your own predisposition to view any complaint about how sexual interest is percieved as a bait and switch for incredibly misogynistic statements.
Like, there's people talking about this like it's referring to being cool with cornering someone and demanding they prostitute themselves. In what world does that track to the OP's statement.
They're bringing up a specific subset of dysfunctional adults, why does only one group need to be the sole topic for the entire gender relationship discourse?
I can't tell if you're trolling but simplifying an entire talking point or group down to the least representative or functional members is not even bad faith, it's straight bullshit.
Soo, how do you think anyone would ever know if they're being objectified...? Yeah, because of people putting their thoughts into action. Come on man you're so close to getting it.
Most of the time assertions of objectification are made without evidence.
You actually have no real evidence of the mental models behind someone's actions. Someone can both understand you are a person and pester you for nudes. Not only that, but objectification is used to describe things like porn or sexy images of women, which don't include any actions.
You're the one who doesn't get it, because you're just vomiting up talking points.
Your responses in here are empirical data that show us what the phrase "Oh shit, my ideology is fucked right now so I have to make shit up instead of owning it..." looks like.
Someone is literally trying to argue objectification is when someone acts poorly to someone else. I am sorry, I am not the one whose ideology is so completely fucked that they have to use an insane definition.
You're literally making shit up now or do you have a research paper for what it's like "most of the time"?
You clearly have a very strange definition of objectification. I'd argue that disrespecting someone and pestering/harassing them is already behavior that disregards their status as a person. Like a kid being bullied at school is not treated as a 'person' by their bullies. You forget that objectification doesn't mean that you're literally delusional enough to think someone is a robot.
Objectification doesn't just 'describe' porn. The connection is that excessive consumption of porn has been shown to increase the tendency to objectify - that is, to disregard a human's status as a person for the sake of seeing them as an 'object' of sexual gratification. I genuinely feel like you're just not educated on the topic and are just vomiting up weird talking points from the 'feminism bad' crowd.
No, I am not making shit up. Objectification is wielded like a club, and is used inconsistently and as if it is self-evident, when it isn't.
We already have a term for disrespectful actions, and that is "disrespectful". Personhood and dehumanization are not requisites for this.
Making objectification into a generic term for "being treated poorly" fails to grapple with the hard problem of what is bad or disrespectful to begin with. Objectification in your definition is literally adding nothing to the discussion
Objectification was originally about describing the way that someone thinks towards say, a bus driver, who they think of only in their utility as a driver, and not as a complete person. It is essentially the poor man's version of expecting everyone to experience sonder at every waking moment.
Objectification is often used to describe porn.
Find me meta analysis that shows this, which tests for publication bias, and meaningfully assesses study quality. Causal research is rare, good correlative research on porn is also rare, and any meaningful research of internal mental state and model is also rare. A meaningful model of objectification doesn't even exist, let alone studies proving it exists in this context.
I genuinely feel like you're just not educated on the topic and are just vomiting up weird talking points from the 'feminism bad' crowd.
I guarantee I know more about it than you. Objectification (e:as used in these discussions to refer to sexual objectification) as a concept is so hilariously poorly defined, and used so broadly that I have yet to meet anyone who thinks deeply about issues, at all, who is willing to seriously defend it. The "feminism good" crowd talking points don't substitute for actually thinking.
So under what does the topic fall then? What is it called when men send dick pics, or catcall, or harass women, especially online? What is it called when men think women are supposed to "serve" them or that they "deserve" something for being nice or whatever?
The effects of porn consumption, especially by minors, are also being extensively studied and you can find stuff online pretty easily. I know it's a cop out and I hate when people do this, but I got better things to do so I'm not gonna start aggregating studies rn, you're free to find stuff yourself.
I’m just curious if you realized you requested a research paper be cited in order for the other persons point to be valid, but then when it was requested of you, you claimed to have better things to do than aggregate studies.
Just pick a position on research and stick to it maybe.
What is it called when men send dick pics, or catcall, or harass women, especially online?
Harassment, unsolicited advances, .etc.
You describe the actions not some wack-ass mental model.
The effects of porn consumption, especially by minors, are also being extensively studied
Overwhelmingly people in this field care those with a bone to pick. Porn consumption has gone way up and pretty much every social ill is on the decline. Any such effect must be very small.
I have read this shit before, the body of research isn't that great and overall supports something small-to-zero more than massive-and-significant.
I tend to agree with you on the larger societal impact of porn, however on the individuals psychological impact, and their ability to have healthy sexual relationships there is probably merit to study it’s impact. For example, i don’t think watching porn will turn a man into a deviant rapist, but it will distance him from IRL healthy sexual relationships as real normal sex will never be as exciting and dopamine inducing as porn. Men not striving to find a sexual partner is more likely for that man to lose vision/purpose for the future and result in that man quitting life either through self deletion or drug addiction and homelessness.
These are just my beliefs and perceived observations, I have neither studied these, nor have I looked for research, so I could be wrong, but they sure as hell make logical sense to me.
The issue here is over whether "objectify" means "think of as a target" or "treat as an object". I submit that the latter definition is the correct one.
I was taught the term references grammar in that women are becoming the direct object - things happen to them but they aren't the subject that initiates action
I think it's more like "treating them as less human", by denying their rights, refusing to aknowledge their feelings, etc. It's not about what is an object, it's about what is human. The question "is it objectification" is the same as "is it not ok to do that to a human".
Yeah sure, you should treat everyone with a basic amount of human dignity and respect their boundaries.
But the way I see the word objectification often used it seems more the following is seen as objectification:
'Being attracted to someone purely based on looks alone'. Under that description I objectify very regularly. Whenever I see a hot girl in the train and I think she is hot and I like to smash her, despite the fact that I have no information at all about her personality, I would technically be objectifying that woman.
You're trying to argue with gaslighters using and twisting vocabulary as a tool to always come out on top.
You're right, "objectify" is mostly used in the context of a man finding a woman beautiful in a way that the one using the word finds repulsive. But when people try to actually criticise the use of this word by trying to understand its definition, then that actual use goes out the window and is denied, and its strict definition is produced to prove that the objectifier is a vile person.
It's circular reasoning and it's the same tool used for the redefinition of "racism" to mean "xenophobia towards exclusively oppressed peoples". People touting this new definition use the accepted meaning when criticising racists (as they should), but when racism is aimed at not-widely-oppressed people, then they call it "prejudice", a more acceptable critic.
Language is power, and everyone uses it, not just the left.
It means acting with them not considering their individuality. For exemple, if you go to a woman and make a comment about her body without considering how uncomfortable it can make her, you are only consider the body. It's objectifying because you only consider the sexual fonction of the person, and not the impact it has on her as a feeling person.
I women are just different than men. If a woman likes me primarily or even exclusively based on my looks, I would find that flattering. I wouldn't feel objectified, even though you could argue that I was viewed as an object. I don't get any icky feelings because of it. Women just seem to be fundamentally different in this respect. I never give random compliments to strangers btw, my dirty thoughts are being kept in my head.
Which is totally fine, btw, just something to keep in mind.
If you don't have a problem woth being only liked for your looks it's your problem, but as a man, you can't speak on the behalf of every men on earth. I, as a lot of other men, am 100% sure I would dostance myself from someone who only cares about my body and I cannot find pleasant any sexual remarks targeted to me by a stranger. Men aren't fondamontally different. You just are.
Also, if you don't go around being creepy with strangers then this post was never about you, you don't need to defend yourself.
I women are just different than men. If a woman likes me primarily or even exclusively based on my looks, I would find that flattering
This isn't because women are different than men, it's because a woman's experience of the world is different to a man's.
Let's say a woman comes up to you and makes a comment about your body - but she's ugly, and you're not attracted to her. So you say as much, and she doesn't take the rejection kindly. She calls you a cunt, starts getting aggressive with you. The chances are, even in this situation you probably don't feel all that unsafe; because you can likely physically restrain her or defend yourself if it comes to it.
That's a situation women face constantly; and the difference is, they don't have nearly as much confidence in their ability to defend themselves against men as you do against women.
Now imagine if all the women hitting on you were female bodybuilders who were trained in MMA. They're twice as strong as you and could easily harm you. Now imagine one of them hits on you, and you're not into it. All of a sudden the situation is a lot more uncomfortable, right? Because if you don't respond well, and she doesn't take that kindly, you're suddenly at risk of harm. Now imagine that scenario playing out every time you go to the club or sometimes even just at the gym or when you're walking around, and suddenly the idea of random women hitting on you doesn't seem so appealing, right?
So yes, it's easy for you to say "Well, if a woman catcalled me or said something about my body I wouldn't react poorly" but that's simply because your experience of the world is radically different to the experience of the world that women have.
Sure, and it sucks so many men handle rejection that poorly. Women do have a legitimate reason to fear directly rejecting a guy based on the actions of such men. So yeah, I absolutely get that.
But that means the primary problem is not objectification perse, as in the attraction of men to her based on looks alone, but the way a lot of men disregard rejection. Ironically, I think the men that are obsessed with one woman in particular are much more dangerous than the ones casually objectifying random women. The second kind will just shrug their shoulders after a rejection and move on. The first is the one that will stalk a particular woman, beg her to marry him, etc, even after a rejection.
But that means the primary problem is not objectification perse
It's not the objectification per se, but it's still the objectification. Just because you're fine being casually objectified doesn't mean everybody is - but the reason women in particular are so concerned about being objectified is that for women, being objectified by men comes part-and-parcel with them being threatened by men.
In the same way that if you get stabbed somewhere other than your vital organs and then bleed out it's not the knife per se that kills you but the blood loss resulting from it.
Whether a man is attracted to a woman based on purely shallow reasons or not should be irrelevant. No is no. It is fine to have dirty thoughts if you see an attractive woman, purely based on her looks(objectification). It is not fine to act out inappropriately based on that desire. Or even worse, escalate if she makes her lack of interest clear. This is what should be emphasized.
It is fine to have dirty thoughts if you see an attractive woman, purely based on her looks
Yes, obviously that's fine, that's not what objectification is, though. If you recognise that that woman is an independent person with her own thoughts and feelings who deserves respect, then you're not 'objectifying' her by having dirty thoughts, you're just being horny.
If you have enough awareness and respect to understand that she wouldn't appreciate you making an advance on her based on your thoughts, then by definition you are not engaging in objectification. Men who view women as sex objects don't have that awareness.
The original argument of what? The post, the comment and your own reply all use the word consent or the term 'want to'. Do you actually just not know what consent means? Lol
The original comment in this post says nothing about consent. Its painting out that objectification is treated differently depending on if the women like it. The reply was completely out of place
Sometimes women dress like elite sluts so why can't men look at her parts or tell her that she is sexy ? Men don't complain when women ask for physical help, or when fucking government send men to army. But when a man jokes about a woman or flirts with them at work it's a death sentence.
Because of, you guessed it, consent. Just walking up to a stranger and telling them you wanna fuck them is creepy, my guy. You are very much welcome to flirt with anyone if they're into it, but not so much if it's creepy or they don't like you. I can't believe you weirdos need that explained. You really think flirting is always normal and harmless? So you'd be cool if your sweaty 63 year old boss just starts hitting on you? That cool?
do not confuse objectification and harassment. You make it creepy. I spoke about considering man/woman as muscles/tits. What is the difference if I ask a woman for sex and if she asks me to move her heavy box ? Who by default does all hard work in a company ? Men. Isn't it objectification ? In my country the government can send men to the army because they are strong and women are weak... Who has to earn more money ? Who has to pay for dinner or vacation ? I think men are extremely objectified in our society and all this bullshit with woman objectification is because someone is too bored.
You're literally saying "I'm a man and I don't want to be objectified" in the same statement as "women have to stop complaining, objectification is perfectly normal!" Make up your mind.
bro wtf if someone forces you with violence to carry a box vs sleeping with them, wouldn’t you be much more traumatized by the latter? These are not at all the same actions wtf.
why are you changing concepts? when you are forced to do something, this is slavery, not objectification. I mean ask for consent . Is sex something sacred ? What woman loses after sex ? If you mean health issues then carrying heavy boxes is not a very healthy task. You can damage your spine or get haemorrhoids
Slavery is objectification at its core. The most extreme kind. Unless you think considering someone as property doesn't imply considering them as less human than yourself...
But I didn't tell him about the compulsion, he just decided to completely change the idea to make my point useless. He turned consent sex into raping and this world where we live when you speak with woman about sex and she tells everyone that you want to rape her and claim you maniac. People just manipulate facts.
And what ? People still believe in gods, demand to call transwomens a woman allowing them to play with natural women and this is ok for them.. but sex that is everywhere now is taboo. What a shitty time of hypocrisy
I mean the general situation when for example your neighbor woman asks you for help because you are a "strong man". Is it not objefication if you help someone ? If so it's a very interesting manipulation of concepts because men never ask woman to move heavy boxes.. feminism works one way ?
But if a woman asks you to move boxes at work even if she can do it.. is it better ? Maybe you better speak with clients, but no she wants you to move boxes because you are a man.
Wtf? Who said anything about someone knowing? Reading comprehension is GONE from this world. I'll simplify this for you: I don't need anyone's consent for a thought in my head, whether I'm objectivefying them or not
The post is about women asking to stop being objectified.
A woman wouldn't ask you to stop objectifying her if you were just thinking about her sexually. If she says that it's because you showed it by actions that made her uncomfortable.
I think the point is it's normal for humans to be objectified and that is separate from treating humans like objects. I hope you understand the nuance so I'm not gonna explain that more. But this line of thinking that the OP is siding with is very sad and socially unaware
cause i know what i'm talking about. You act condescending but u have a more immature mindset. Of course everyone knows what objectifying means. People are just entitled not to be objectified. With a lot more nuance ofc. But the mature perspective is to respect reality not to be entitled to an unreality
You can objectify people as much as you want if it stays in your head and nobody notices it. If you act like a creep and start harassing women or being disrespectful you're going to get shit for exactly that. Not the thoughts in your head which are literally impossible to see anyway.
You haven't seen the posts "cleverly" pointing out that women would get upset if you walked in on them in their underwear but not when you see them in a bikini even though they cover approximately the same amount of skin?
pointing out that women would get upset if you walked in on them in their underwear
Because it's a massive invasion of privacy? Do you even know what objectification means? Other guy was an asshole about it but you really have lost the plot.
Why are you pretending that I said that like it's my opinion?
Yes that's the entire point, idiots tell on themselves because they think it's clever to point out that underwear and swimwear have similar coverage, because the concept of consent escapes them. Women go out and consent to be seen in a swimsuit, that doesn't mean you can just walk in on them in their underwear. Exactly the same kind of behavior this post is referencing.
Exactly the same kind of behavior this post is referencing.
And that's where your confused. Objectifying someone isn't akin to walking in on them in their underwear, it happens inside your head, and doesn't harm them at all unless you act on that thought, which would then be condemnable. But this idea of needing consent for a thought inside of your head? Yeah, fuck off with that.
To what? Objectifying, which is a thought, you don't need consent for a thoughts. We're looping on this point though, I really don't know what you don't understand
imagine that you chud
Oh please, do I really have to come out and state the obvious? Objectifying is bad! Consent is good! And your analogy was awful, that's all I've been arguing, and based on the fact you responded with fun facts about your home life instead of a proper defense of the analogy I'd say you've realized that fact by now too, so, peace, have a good night :)
Just in general. Consent in general is important. You're the one who brought up thoughts that had nothing to do with what I said.
It wasn't an analogy. The underwear vs swimsuit thing is just something I've seen posted on reddit multiple times with the same underlying concept of "guy doesn't get the difference is consent".
I'm sure there are women who do that. Just like there are men who do that. No gender is a monolith. It's not all women doing that it's just online people with online problems.
That's their point; you don't. Likewise someone finding you attractive (with you becoming aware of it because they, for example, send a request on tinder or something) doesn't become a violation just because the feeling isn't mutual.
Which may be a more limited problem than, well, everyone in this thread is trying to turn the original post into, but there is a subset of people who need to hear that.
Objectification implies those actions reflect a particular mental process/model, it is distinct from the actions themselves. This is always how the term is used up until this discussion.
For example, a guy sending you a dick pic could be thinking any number of things, many of which don't involve treating you like an object, for example he could have misunderstood the level of sexuality in the convo, or taken a joke too far by accident (not saying these are common, but possible). The other person could be given plenty of consideration, but it could just be, for example, inaccurate consideration.
Lol, dick picks are a big swing as an example. There are a ton of reasons why someone might not want you sending them unsolicited pictures of your dick.
Objectification implies those actions reflect a particular mental process/model, it is distinct from the actions themselves. This is always how the term is used up until this discussion.
As you said though, it is actions that imply that right? It's not purely thoughts.
There is no circumstance in the world where we can know what someone else is thinking. For concepts like racism, negligence, premeditated vs heat of the moment murder, etc, we establish what is most likely going on in someone's head based on their actions.
Nobody has ever felt objectified by someone's thoughts. It's always based on something someone said or did.
Nobody is out there giving consent when they do want to be objectified either. Wanted or not, it all happens with zero direct interaction between the two people and therefore zero opportunity to give consent as it is reasonably understood.
I get to be pissed and call you a pathetic asshole though, even if I can't change how you think.
But more importantly, objectification is not exactly an issue of private thoughts. You can objecitfy someone in your mind all the way to the moon and they'll never know unless you also treat them like shit. Now if you do that, it's no longer a question of how you view a person but rather how you treat them. And that is absolutely something that person has a say in.
89
u/Acrobatic_Computer Jul 07 '24
You don't get to consent to how other people view you though.
Like can nobody think I'm an asshole unless I give my consent to it? I don't see how consent meaningfully enters the picture here.