Can't disagree with that, but when your desire is totally based on her looks, it's objectification. For that brief period, she's an object of desire. Again, I'm not saying that's wrong (we all have to decide for ourselves if it is or not).
And again, it goes back to saying that "oh that's just how it works"...I'm saying it doesn't have to work that way. For me, there's another way. I can honestly say that the relationship I'm in now didn't start with a physical attraction. For you and others, it might not work that way, but saying "this is how most relationships start" or "that's just how guys/girls are" doesn't make one method more valid than another.
agree overall.......and last statement - VERY true.
i think the comment 'oh that's just how it works' is simply used b/c on average, it IS just how it works. nowadays, especially with the internet...that has changed considerably. however, when one meets a future partner 'traditionally'...meaning face to face for the first time, what usually happens is an intital sense of attraction based on physical attributes alone, thus the approach...and then sure....getting to know each other as people. the only time i can think of it otherwise is when two people have friends in common, they are not initially phsycially attracted, but b/c of mutual time spent together, attraction develops from the meshing of personality.
I got this from wikipedia under their article for sexual objectification.
"Feminist scholars say that the objectification of women involves disregarding personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities, and women's reduction to instruments of sexual pleasure for men."
Now as I stated being initially attracted to a women, or man, because of their appearance does not qualify as sexual objectification. If I see an attractive woman and I am drawn to her does not mean that I will disregard her personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities. I'm not reducing this said women to nothing more than a sexual object.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
It's still unfair. A woman and a man choose to work the same job, one makes less. A woman and a man choose to go to the same party, one has to pay more. Still unfair, thus, under your definition earlier, it is oppression.
no not by my definition. you know, the whole power thing.
and the systemic employment discrimination and unequal pay is not the same thing as a party. we simply heavily disagree.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
I would say that, since prostitution is a form of objectification, prostitution would necessarily go away if objectification did.
do you truly believe that?
seriously?
while i will agree there is most definitely a degree of objectification within prostitution, i do not believe for one minute that prostitution is 100% based on objectification only, and therefore without the existence of objectification, there would be no prostitution.
that said, i also do not believe for one minute that objectification would ever disappear 100%, nor do i believe that it should 'have to'....b/c i do not believe objectification to be all 'wrong'.....and it does serve us all some purpose, a baser instinct, what have you.
i just think there is a whole lot more goin' on within the context of prostitution than the simplistic idea of objectification, alone.
I got this from wikipedia under their article for sexual objectification.
"Feminist scholars say that the objectification of women involves disregarding personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities, and women's reduction to instruments of sexual pleasure for men."
Now as I stated being initially attracted to a women, or man, because of their appearance does not qualify as sexual objectification. If I see an attractive woman and I am drawn to her does not mean that I will disregard her personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities. I'm not reducing this said women to nothing more than a sexual object.
if you are passing the woman on the street, or looking at her picture in a magazine....aren't you simply focusing on physical attributes alone? so then, objectification by definition. obviously, if you have further contact with said woman, the objectification would cease. and hey, i say this as a oman who readily admits that i do objectify men all the time. yes, i am well aware there is so much more to them...hell, i objectify beautiful women too! thing is, without any contact/interaction...i am merely appreaciating their surface and moving on, not thinking beyond that....so yes, objectifying. and again, there is nothing wrong with that, alone!
I am curious, what exactly do people think is the difference between appreciating someone's beauty and objectifying them?
It's great to appreciate someone's beauty! I do this all the time, male or female. As long as you see them as human beings with feelings, and attempt to connect with their thoughts, feelings and intuitions as well.
someone viewing pornography is not doing this, for example. And it's been shown this type of thing increases desensitization to the humanity of women.
If you notice, I was specifically asked a question regarding the parameters of objectification. To which I responded, clarifying the parameters of objectification.
When you add on a moral content, and say: "You are conditioning 'acceptable' attraction upon all this hippy stuff and implying that attraction without the latter sentence is wrong. " ...
...that is about your interpretation, which is independent of what I was actually doing.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
if you are passing the woman on the street, or looking at her picture in a magazine....aren't you simply focusing on physical attributes alone? so then, objectification by definition. obviously, if you have further contact with said woman, the objectification would cease. and hey, i say this as a oman who readily admits that i do objectify men all the time. yes, i am well aware there is so much more to them...hell, i objectify beautiful women too! thing is, without any contact/interaction...i am merely appreaciating their surface and moving on, not thinking beyond that....so yes, objectifying. and again, there is nothing wrong with that, alone!
That is my problem. The fact that it has been categorized as objectification, which we already agreed does carry a negative association, instead of just admiring.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
if one is looking at a picture of a person, or simply passing them in the street.....how can one "attempt to connect with their thoughts, feelings and intuitions as well"...and more importantly, why should one feel as if they HAVE to? i can appreciate one's beauty, objectify, and there is no wrong in that in such situations. obviously, if i have more than photo or passing contact, sure...my appreciation should be on a deeper level. again, context.
That is my problem. The fact that it has been categorized as objectification, which we already agreed does carry a negative association, instead of just admiring.
this harkens back to our 'oppression' discussion yesterday.
whether society deems negative connotations to the word or not, the fact remians it DOES fit the definition of said word. you want to call it appreciating, i agree....but it does also fit quite nicely within objectification as well. and i also see nothing wrong with it. if we allow society to twist and alter meanings of words - and we DO, for so many - we can and should reclaim words, especially to keep them true to their means and neutrality. just my thought on it.
you're choosing to go to that party. choosing. it's a party. and the idea behind girls getting in for free, i'm guessing, is so they can get drunk and taken advantage of. that's the assumption behind free drinks---just look at this thread. yeah that's a GREAT deal for women!
women in the united states do not choose to make about 70 cents to the dollar (diff amounts for white women and women of color).
these are not the same things.
Who said anything about it being the same. I'm talking about injustice, remember? Like women under oppression in the States don't exactly experience the same as women under oppression in third world countries, for example. It's oppression none the less.
It's again the woman who is being treated unfairly here. Unbelievable, and it's all based on your excellent guess work.
Well, here's an idea for those oppressed girls; don't go to the party, don't drink and don't let anyone take advantage of you. If you're seriously that weak, stay the fuck home. Again, don't confuse your culture with mine. I personally don't know anyone who buys drinks for girls they don't know. We buy drinks for friends, male and female. If we want to meet girls we dance with them, talk to them, play foosball with them... I don't know how it's like in the States but here the great majority of guys doesn't buy girls drinks so they can get in their pants. It's simple not so.
I'm starting to think the US is filled with girls who can't take responsibility for anything and guys who deliberately get every girl they see drunk to take advantage of her. It's a sad world you live in, I'm glad it's nothing like that here.
Anyway, injustice towards men because of gender. Simple as that; oppression.
Traci Lords' life is sad, to be sure, but she suffered the abuse before porn and statistically speaking, she's just as likely to have had abusive relationship and drug abuse whether or not she ended up in porn, as so many such victims do.
I'd like to see these statistics of which you speak.
For every path, there are better and worse potential outcomes and the fact that she took one that had negative consequences doesn't make the path itself inherently wrong or bad and mean we should make it illegal.
I've not read either book, but I've read plenty of stories. One star I was partial to said porn ruined her life, she's some sort of reformed Jesus freak now. More power to her. No, it's not cool. Nobody should have to suffer that kind of treatment. But all of the acts you mentioned are illegal in and of themselves and happen outside of the porn world. In addition, I think one star (can't recall the name) has built her own company run by and for women and it has been enormously successful. That is a good development.
Traci Lords' life is sad, to be sure, but she suffered the abuse before porn and statistically speaking, she's just as likely to have had abusive relationship and drug abuse whether or not she ended up in porn, as so many such victims do. Her career just made it easy to meet those people. Furthermore, it gave her the money and fame to turn her life around and speak out about abuse. It's quite likely had she not done this, she could have been living in the streets prostituting herself at the same age with no hope of ever getting out. I'm not saying porn is a great thing that saved her life, I'm just saying that none of this is black and white or simple. For every path, there are better and worse potential outcomes and the fact that she took one that had negative consequences doesn't make the path itself inherently wrong or bad and mean we should make it illegal.
What I'm saying is that I no longer find it sexual when others are or may be in a dark place enough to objectify themselves.
I can tune that out, and derive pleasure in such situations. When I have done so, I have not felt good about the outcome, orgasmic, or not. I choose not to do that to myself any longer. As I mentioned, I prefer the mind-numbing Amazement of Sacred Sexuality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
this harkens back to our 'oppression' discussion yesterday.
whether society deems negative connotations to the word or not, the fact remians it DOES fit the definition of said word. you want to call it appreciating, i agree....but it does also fit quite nicely within objectification as well. and i also see nothing wrong with it. if we allow society to twist and alter meanings of words - and we DO, for so many - we can and should reclaim words, especially to keep them true to their means and neutrality. just my thought on it.
Here is some more from wikipedia.
"While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist and masculist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such as Naomi Wolf find the concept of physical attractiveness itself to be problematic,[27] with some radical feminists being opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics."
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I don't think anyone's saying you should be ashamed for objectifying a person. But you should be honest with yourself, accept the fact that you're objectifying, and think about if that's ok or not. Most people won't do this. They'll just pass it off as "oh well, that's just part of being a guy/girl"....maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't think it is. I think it's just the result of being trained that way. You can un-train yourself. I know I have to a certain degree.
I think the point is just that our conscious self should drive our overall thinking about people (even hot women).
If you notice, I was specifically asked a question regarding the parameters of objectification. To which I responded, clarifying the parameters of objectification.
When you add on a moral content, and say: "You are conditioning 'acceptable' attraction upon all this hippy stuff and implying that attraction without the latter sentence is wrong. " ...
...that is about your interpretation, which is independent of what I was actually doing.
Gotcha.
But I'm still with decides2dream. There's nothing wrong with a little harmless objectification, and eradicating it would not stop prostitution.
....truthfully, I looked at his profile information over that post....and given he's only 3 years older than my daughter (who just gave birth today, making me a GRANDMOTHER) I refrained from saying this exact thing!!!!!!!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'd like to see these statistics of which you speak.
Who said anything about making porn illegal?
aren't most sexually abused children more apt to be in abusive relationships when older, and/or to abuse themselves, physically and/or emotionally? i think that's the point. one need not enter the porn industry to do so.
i agree wholeheartedly there.
beyond that, there is so much 'more' involved in so many of these things...and of course extenuating circumstances, individual life events, etc. life is not 'fair' that's for damn sure, and it is unfortunate the many correlations that do occur, but there also is no reason to do away with one's free will, and make activities illegal b/c of such, since there is no direct correlation of cause/effect there, it should be left to choice. no one was suggesting making pornography illegal, but it just fits in nicely within the conversation. i do believe pornography, prostituition, BOTH should be legal. one's personal morality should be just that' their own personal morality. THAt should not be governed. it's like states that ban certain sexual acts or sales of sex toys, etc......ridiculous.
btw - we all 'objectify' ourselves to some degree. anything we try to look our best, we are working on our outer shell alone. posing provacativly for pictures, hell even just making a nice smile for the camera...objectifying. you are asking to be looked at the surface alone, or drawing attention to the surface alone. obviously, it all can go well beyond that and the objectification ceases.....but we do, as a culture, even as a species....'objectify' without negative consequences, all the time.
mammasan...i hear ya. that's my point. there are MANY pov on the topic, so it doesn't make one any more right' than the other.....and it certainly does not necessarly, conclusively, point to wrong'......so just b/c it has developed a negative connotation does not mean i have to personally acept that. i choose to see it as far more neutral overall....and then will se 'good' or 'bad' depending on the context of the individual situations.
What is the difference between physical attraction and objectification? I know there are biological and anthropological needs for attraction for mating purposes. So we aren't going to get rid of physical attraction as driver ever. But where does that cross into objectification? Or are they the same thing?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
What is the difference between physical attraction and objectification? I know there are biological and anthropological needs for attraction for mating purposes. So we aren't going to get rid of physical attraction as driver ever. But where does that cross into objectification? Or are they the same thing?
According to some they are the same thing. I happen to disagree with that notion.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
What is the difference between physical attraction and objectification? I know there are biological and anthropological needs for attraction for mating purposes. So we aren't going to get rid of physical attraction as driver ever. But where does that cross into objectification? Or are they the same thing?
Pay attention! there's a whole line of this questioning already!
I'd like to see these statistics of which you speak.
Who said anything about making porn illegal?
I don't have my rehab materials handy. But they run down all sorts of factors that drive drug abuse, and childhood abuse is one. I can't compare them to porn stars, but let's be honest here... if she was sexually abused as a child she's far more likely to end up a drug addict or any other number of disorders. The point was that you can't say that if only she'd never have gotten into porn, her life would have been fine and none of the other things would have happened. There's no way to say that porn caused Traci Lords to have abusive relationships or drug problems. It was a response to angelica's comments about the porn industry and the memoirs of some of its stars.
As to making it illegal, it was an effort at analogy. Just because some horror stories come out of a given situation does not mean we need to shut it down or ban it. Maybe porn or prostitution attract the damaged. You could say McDonald's attracts those of limited intelligence or few options, should we ban that because it oppresses the lower classes or the weaker-minded?
do you truly believe that?
seriously?
....
i just think there is a whole lot more goin' on within the context of prostitution than the simplistic idea of objectification, alone.
Do I seriously believe that prostitution is a form of objectification? Yes. The definition of prostitution is for someone to be used solely for the sexual gratification of another person. Sounds like textbook objectification to me.
But just because I don't think prostitution can exist without objectification doesn't mean I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
When women and men live holistically, being integrated body/mind/soul, no one will be able to objectify themselves or others.
And until then, I'm realistic enough to know many varying levels of human behaviour will continue. And I LOVE life and reality exactly as it is!
why?
and why would that be 'better'.......?
seriously.
i don't see why living 'holistically' means one cannot objectify themselves or others, and why this objectification would be bad? again, if you look at a picture of a beautiful man or woman, if you've never met that person, you cannot know them at ALL...except for that picture. thus, appreciating their physical beauty, technically objectification....and how can there be 'wrong' in that......?
i feel a pretty well i'integrated' person, especially in my relationships, and yet i readily admit to objectifying passing people, strangers, photos, etc. if i do not know them, no intention of knowing them...what else can i do besides ignore or be repulsed/admire their physical self?
When women and men live holistically, being integrated body/mind/soul, no one will be able to objectify themselves or others.
And until then, I'm realistic enough to know many varying levels of human behaviour will continue. And I LOVE life and reality exactly as it is!
Why is it that when Saturnal says there's nothing wrong with objectification as long as one is conscious of it and examines it critically, you and scb are ready to marry your daughters to him. But when decides2dream and I argue the same point, you quote me to respond that you hope to one day live in a society where no one is able to objectify others? If you agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with objectification (as you have disingenuously tried to say in here), then why is it such a good thing to strive to eradicate it?
Pay attention! there's a whole line of this questioning already!
I have actually been following along, but it seems to be hard to get an easy, one line answer. Mammasan just did it above, and I agree with him. All species have some form of attraction to other members of that species for purely biological reasons. To consider that objectification and to think that somehow it will be unlearned is silly. There is certainly objectification going on that can and should be highlighted and "unlearned", but just as the meaning of the word "oppression" is minimized by its overapplication in this thread, the meaning of the word "objectification" also becomes less meaningful.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Do I seriously believe that prostitution is a form of objectification? Yes. The definition of prostitution is for someone to be used solely for the sexual gratification of another person. Sounds like textbook objectification to me.
But just because I don't think prostitution can exist without objectification doesn't mean I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
no, my question was if you believe if objectification disappeared, prosititution would. i already agreed objectification is certainly a BIG part of prostitution, but i don't think it is ALL of it. thus my question about thinking it would disappear.
and i honestly cannot believe so many truly view objectification thru ONLY a negative lens. it can be, very often, a very neutral activity.
one can go solely for sexual gratification with nothing else withOUT prostitution as well.
Comments
agree overall.......and last statement - VERY true.
i think the comment 'oh that's just how it works' is simply used b/c on average, it IS just how it works. nowadays, especially with the internet...that has changed considerably. however, when one meets a future partner 'traditionally'...meaning face to face for the first time, what usually happens is an intital sense of attraction based on physical attributes alone, thus the approach...and then sure....getting to know each other as people. the only time i can think of it otherwise is when two people have friends in common, they are not initially phsycially attracted, but b/c of mutual time spent together, attraction develops from the meshing of personality.
however, absolutely....ALL are valid.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I would say that, since prostitution is a form of objectification, prostitution would necessarily go away if objectification did.
"Feminist scholars say that the objectification of women involves disregarding personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities, and women's reduction to instruments of sexual pleasure for men."
Now as I stated being initially attracted to a women, or man, because of their appearance does not qualify as sexual objectification. If I see an attractive woman and I am drawn to her does not mean that I will disregard her personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities. I'm not reducing this said women to nothing more than a sexual object.
no not by my definition. you know, the whole power thing.
and the systemic employment discrimination and unequal pay is not the same thing as a party. we simply heavily disagree.
cross the river to the eastside
do you truly believe that?
seriously?
while i will agree there is most definitely a degree of objectification within prostitution, i do not believe for one minute that prostitution is 100% based on objectification only, and therefore without the existence of objectification, there would be no prostitution.
that said, i also do not believe for one minute that objectification would ever disappear 100%, nor do i believe that it should 'have to'....b/c i do not believe objectification to be all 'wrong'.....and it does serve us all some purpose, a baser instinct, what have you.
i just think there is a whole lot more goin' on within the context of prostitution than the simplistic idea of objectification, alone.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
if you are passing the woman on the street, or looking at her picture in a magazine....aren't you simply focusing on physical attributes alone? so then, objectification by definition. obviously, if you have further contact with said woman, the objectification would cease. and hey, i say this as a oman who readily admits that i do objectify men all the time. yes, i am well aware there is so much more to them...hell, i objectify beautiful women too! thing is, without any contact/interaction...i am merely appreaciating their surface and moving on, not thinking beyond that....so yes, objectifying. and again, there is nothing wrong with that, alone!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
If you notice, I was specifically asked a question regarding the parameters of objectification. To which I responded, clarifying the parameters of objectification.
When you add on a moral content, and say: "You are conditioning 'acceptable' attraction upon all this hippy stuff and implying that attraction without the latter sentence is wrong. " ...
...that is about your interpretation, which is independent of what I was actually doing.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That is my problem. The fact that it has been categorized as objectification, which we already agreed does carry a negative association, instead of just admiring.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
this harkens back to our 'oppression' discussion yesterday.
whether society deems negative connotations to the word or not, the fact remians it DOES fit the definition of said word. you want to call it appreciating, i agree....but it does also fit quite nicely within objectification as well. and i also see nothing wrong with it. if we allow society to twist and alter meanings of words - and we DO, for so many - we can and should reclaim words, especially to keep them true to their means and neutrality. just my thought on it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Who said anything about it being the same. I'm talking about injustice, remember? Like women under oppression in the States don't exactly experience the same as women under oppression in third world countries, for example. It's oppression none the less.
It's again the woman who is being treated unfairly here. Unbelievable, and it's all based on your excellent guess work.
Well, here's an idea for those oppressed girls; don't go to the party, don't drink and don't let anyone take advantage of you. If you're seriously that weak, stay the fuck home. Again, don't confuse your culture with mine. I personally don't know anyone who buys drinks for girls they don't know. We buy drinks for friends, male and female. If we want to meet girls we dance with them, talk to them, play foosball with them... I don't know how it's like in the States but here the great majority of guys doesn't buy girls drinks so they can get in their pants. It's simple not so.
I'm starting to think the US is filled with girls who can't take responsibility for anything and guys who deliberately get every girl they see drunk to take advantage of her. It's a sad world you live in, I'm glad it's nothing like that here.
Anyway, injustice towards men because of gender. Simple as that; oppression.
naděje umírá poslední
I'd like to see these statistics of which you speak.
Who said anything about making porn illegal?
I can tune that out, and derive pleasure in such situations. When I have done so, I have not felt good about the outcome, orgasmic, or not. I choose not to do that to myself any longer. As I mentioned, I prefer the mind-numbing Amazement of Sacred Sexuality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Here is some more from wikipedia.
"While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist and masculist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such as Naomi Wolf find the concept of physical attractiveness itself to be problematic,[27] with some radical feminists being opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics."
You might be the man of my dreams....
Gotcha.
But I'm still with decides2dream. There's nothing wrong with a little harmless objectification, and eradicating it would not stop prostitution.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And until then, I'm realistic enough to know many varying levels of human behaviour will continue. And I LOVE life and reality exactly as it is!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
aren't most sexually abused children more apt to be in abusive relationships when older, and/or to abuse themselves, physically and/or emotionally? i think that's the point. one need not enter the porn industry to do so.
i agree wholeheartedly there.
beyond that, there is so much 'more' involved in so many of these things...and of course extenuating circumstances, individual life events, etc. life is not 'fair' that's for damn sure, and it is unfortunate the many correlations that do occur, but there also is no reason to do away with one's free will, and make activities illegal b/c of such, since there is no direct correlation of cause/effect there, it should be left to choice. no one was suggesting making pornography illegal, but it just fits in nicely within the conversation. i do believe pornography, prostituition, BOTH should be legal. one's personal morality should be just that' their own personal morality. THAt should not be governed. it's like states that ban certain sexual acts or sales of sex toys, etc......ridiculous.
btw - we all 'objectify' ourselves to some degree. anything we try to look our best, we are working on our outer shell alone. posing provacativly for pictures, hell even just making a nice smile for the camera...objectifying. you are asking to be looked at the surface alone, or drawing attention to the surface alone. obviously, it all can go well beyond that and the objectification ceases.....but we do, as a culture, even as a species....'objectify' without negative consequences, all the time.
mammasan...i hear ya. that's my point. there are MANY pov on the topic, so it doesn't make one any more right' than the other.....and it certainly does not necessarly, conclusively, point to wrong'......so just b/c it has developed a negative connotation does not mean i have to personally acept that. i choose to see it as far more neutral overall....and then will se 'good' or 'bad' depending on the context of the individual situations.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
According to some they are the same thing. I happen to disagree with that notion.
edit:And don't take mammasan's lack of discernment of what's been covered on the topic, as what has already been covered on the topic...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't have my rehab materials handy. But they run down all sorts of factors that drive drug abuse, and childhood abuse is one. I can't compare them to porn stars, but let's be honest here... if she was sexually abused as a child she's far more likely to end up a drug addict or any other number of disorders. The point was that you can't say that if only she'd never have gotten into porn, her life would have been fine and none of the other things would have happened. There's no way to say that porn caused Traci Lords to have abusive relationships or drug problems. It was a response to angelica's comments about the porn industry and the memoirs of some of its stars.
As to making it illegal, it was an effort at analogy. Just because some horror stories come out of a given situation does not mean we need to shut it down or ban it. Maybe porn or prostitution attract the damaged. You could say McDonald's attracts those of limited intelligence or few options, should we ban that because it oppresses the lower classes or the weaker-minded?
Do I seriously believe that prostitution is a form of objectification? Yes. The definition of prostitution is for someone to be used solely for the sexual gratification of another person. Sounds like textbook objectification to me.
But just because I don't think prostitution can exist without objectification doesn't mean I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
why?
and why would that be 'better'.......?
seriously.
i don't see why living 'holistically' means one cannot objectify themselves or others, and why this objectification would be bad? again, if you look at a picture of a beautiful man or woman, if you've never met that person, you cannot know them at ALL...except for that picture. thus, appreciating their physical beauty, technically objectification....and how can there be 'wrong' in that......?
i feel a pretty well i'integrated' person, especially in my relationships, and yet i readily admit to objectifying passing people, strangers, photos, etc. if i do not know them, no intention of knowing them...what else can i do besides ignore or be repulsed/admire their physical self?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
So because I don't agree with you that means I can't grasp or understand what your saying. Aren't we a bit high and mighty.
Why is it that when Saturnal says there's nothing wrong with objectification as long as one is conscious of it and examines it critically, you and scb are ready to marry your daughters to him. But when decides2dream and I argue the same point, you quote me to respond that you hope to one day live in a society where no one is able to objectify others? If you agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with objectification (as you have disingenuously tried to say in here), then why is it such a good thing to strive to eradicate it?
I have actually been following along, but it seems to be hard to get an easy, one line answer. Mammasan just did it above, and I agree with him. All species have some form of attraction to other members of that species for purely biological reasons. To consider that objectification and to think that somehow it will be unlearned is silly. There is certainly objectification going on that can and should be highlighted and "unlearned", but just as the meaning of the word "oppression" is minimized by its overapplication in this thread, the meaning of the word "objectification" also becomes less meaningful.
Im an ass like that
The Sentence Above Is False
no, my question was if you believe if objectification disappeared, prosititution would. i already agreed objectification is certainly a BIG part of prostitution, but i don't think it is ALL of it. thus my question about thinking it would disappear.
and i honestly cannot believe so many truly view objectification thru ONLY a negative lens. it can be, very often, a very neutral activity.
one can go solely for sexual gratification with nothing else withOUT prostitution as well.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow