and sure, there....that IS seual objectification, but again...in and of itself, is not a BAD thing. and i know we are assigning the idea of 'good' and 'bad'....mostly for lack of better terms. if someone can think of more precise language, i am all for it. i see nothing negative per se with sexual objectification at times. obviously, yes, it can be negative.......but again, it is all CONTEXT to determine when such behaviors have positive or negative consequences. fantasy can vry much be a positive. also, this total stranger has zero idea to my thoughts....so it harms no one. all good.
I'm in complete agreement.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Maybe, maybe not. But there is a difference between porn causing these problems and porn attracting people with these problems. You can't say that porn made her a drug-addicted battered girlfriend. Correlation does not imply causation. The question is... and it applies equally to porn and prostitution... does the fact that it attracts damaged people justify banning it? Those people are still damaged and doing damaged things elsewhere. Or in the case of prostitution, they're still doing it, but without any protection whatsoever. The protection in porn isn't good enough, but that's because this country is afraid of sex and would rather not talk about it. In my opinion, better to bring these things into the open. When these damaged women come to these professions, at least we can keep them safer than they would be on the streets at the mercy of a murderous pimp. And if we treat the profession as a legitimate industry rather than some horrible, degrading thing that only society's biggest losers would engage in, we might just convince some of these women that they do have other options rather than feeding their already shattered self-esteem by damning them for their past and for their present profession.
Again, I don't believe anyone here is asking to sweep things under the rug, or send these professions into hiding, with criminalization, etc.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't think you're understaning the point. You had it moreso in your second paragraph above, where you say porn & prostitution attract the damaged. It's not that porn causes people to be abused or to have drug proplems; it's that women who are sexually assaulted or addicted to drugs are more likely to turn to porn and especially prostitution. Many do this out of desperation and vulnerability. Exploiting that - whether by her consent or not - is not sexy, in my opinion.
Also, I don't think anyone's suggesting that any of these things be banned.
But by passing judgment on the field and calling it sick, doesn't that further the cycle? These women are damaged, and desperate. They see only one way out, and take it. So we condemn them for that and reinforce their negative self image as a fuck up with no options. Doesn't it make more sense to accept these as legitimate fields and thus make these women feel at least a little empowered and in control about making that decision? Perhaps that could be the stepping stone to them moving beyond porn or prostitution and into other things.
By all means, condemn the people who prey upon such women and exploit them. But do not confuse those people with the thought that the entire industry/field is itself ipso facto exploitative.
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?
First of all, I'm not ready to marry my daughter to him... I don't have any kids... I'm ready to marry myself to him... get it straight!
Secondly, I believe he said that once he examined it critically he came to the conclusion that it's not okay.
I'm not sure that merely appreciating the physical beauty of someone about whom you know nothing really is technically objectification. That notion seems to have lost the whole "instrument of sexual pleasure" part of the definition of objectification.
objectification, in and of itself, does not encompass ONLY 'instrument of sexual pleasure'...it is merely about objectifying. not looking beyond the surface. sexual objetification, absolutely...but objectification, period, not mutually exclusive.
if i look at a picture, an object on it's own...and appreciate the image of a person on it...knowing nothing of the person, just their outer beauty, i am appreciating their beauty, and yes, objectifying them. i really have no choice there, i cannot get to 'know' them thru their picture. just like i cannot get to know anyone if i am watching a DVD of porn, looking at womenmen in a fashion show....admiring someone quickly on the train, on the street, etc.....even if i have seual thoughts of them.....even if i sexually objecify them......i don't see that as 'bad' at all. if i do it to someone in PERSON, one whom i have contact and interact with.....yes, i see it negatively. so even sexual objectification, i don't see as an evil.
Again, I don't believe anyone here is asking to sweep things under the rug, or send these professions into hiding, with criminalization, etc.
Perhaps, but we've shifted into a discussion of objectification. By condemning the fields of prostitution and porn, we invalidate the women who choose these professions, for whatever reasons. We say that objectification drives them and that porn and prostitution have no purpose except the objectification of women, thus the women forced into them are dehumanized even by those who wish to help them. You are essentially saying "you cannot be a respected human person and work in porn or be a prostitute." This reinforces their belief that they have no choice and are dehumanized.
Does it not make more sense to say that these are legitimate choices for women to make and that they can choose these fields willingly, thus making a desperate choice empowering at least in some sense?
So what specifically is the action you think we can get past in this regard? The feeling of physical attraction? I'm still not understanding your point.
My point was just that the "it's biological, so it's ok" argument doesn't hold up for me. I'm not saying that's it's NOT ok to be physically attracted to someone.
Perhaps, but we've shifted into a discussion of objectification. By condemning the fields of prostitution and porn, we invalidate the women who choose these professions, for whatever reasons. We say that objectification drives them and that porn and prostitution have no purpose except the objectification of women, thus the women forced into them are dehumanized even by those who wish to help them. You are essentially saying "you cannot be a respected human person and work in porn or be a prostitute." This reinforces their belief that they have no choice and are dehumanized.
Does it not make more sense to say that these are legitimate choices for women to make and that they can choose these fields willingly, thus making a desperate choice empowering at least in some sense?
I'm not condemning the fields of prostitution or porn. I support people doing the best they can for themselves. As I say I LOVE ALL of life. All phases of our evolution. I embrace it all. It's all One.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
First of all, I'm not ready to marry my daughter to him... I don't have any kids... I'm ready to marry myself to him... get it straight!
Secondly, I believe he said that once he examined it critically he came to the conclusion that it's not okay.
That's the crux of the debate... what exactly is "it" that he decided is not ok? No one seems to know what "it" is... ie how much objectification is ok or what kind is acceptable. There are some people here saying there's nothing inherently wrong with it. There are others saying sure it's natural and not inherently bad, but we should still try to eradicate it. I see the latter as a contradiction. And I still fail to see why sexuality is so bad that it is utterly wrong to see an attractive person and think "I would derive great pleasure from sexual coupling with that person" but it is perfectly acceptable as long as you think to yourself at the end "oh yeah, his/her mind is probably great too."
My point was just that the "it's biological, so it's ok" argument doesn't hold up for me. I'm not saying that's it's NOT ok to be physically attracted to someone.
and...I also am not saying it's not okay to be physically attracted to someone. I think people have missed the part where I clearly discerned that it's what we do with that attraction that makes all the difference. The attraction itself just exists, and we can't help that. It's what we decide to do about it that separates us from animals (even though we are also still animals) and to what degree.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
and...I also am not saying it's not okay to be physically attracted to someone. I think people have missed the part where I clearly discerned that it's what we do with that attraction that makes all the difference. The attraction itself just exists, and we can't help that. It's what we decide to do about it that separates us from animals (even though we are also still animals) and to what degree.
I believe that mammasan and I have been saying this repeatedly throughout this thread. But some here continue to insist that sexual objectification should be eradicated and you yourself indicated that it will be a good thing when objectification no longer occurs anywhere. We have been saying objectification happens inevitably and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't let it influence your actions or treat others with disrespect. We've been saying this for 10 pages now and have been told repeatedly that we're wrong and we don't understand.
If people seek a body/mind/soul connection, then one must understand that soul exists on a level beyond physicality and time/space. In our imaginal realms of perception. Therefore, to act from a place of holism, and body/mind/soul, one becomes very conscientious about how they act in Spirit. One understands that to in any way degrade someone in Spirit, from the Truth of who they are in Spirit (God/Goddess) one knows they automatically remove themselves from a level of mind/body/soul awareness.
They become aware the potency of the Spiritual and rarefied level of perception, which is why holistic perception and certainly mind/body/spiritual sex is very rare.
This is why it's absolutely inconsistent to have this degree of perception, and relationship to all things, and to objectify someone.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
..you yourself indicated that it will be a good thing when objectification no longer occurs anywhere...
I didn't say or imply this.
edit: I did say that when we evolve to a state of holism, then objectification and prostitution will be impossible. No moral judgement...a statement.
I also said that I personally cannot tune out what brings a woman to a dark place to objectify herself to act in porn, and find that sexual. No moral judgment...rather my personal response, prior to judgment.
We have been saying objectification happens inevitably and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't let it influence your actions or treat others with disrespect. We've been saying this for 10 pages now and have been told repeatedly that we're wrong and we don't understand.
If you mean attraction happens inevitably, then yes. Objectification is a different matter.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If people seek a body/mind/soul connection, then one must understand that soul exists on a level beyond physicality and time/space. In our imaginal realms of perception. Therefore, to act from a place of holism, and body/mind/soul, one becomes very conscientious about how they act in Spirit. One understands that to in any way degrade someone in Spirit, from the Truth of who they are in Spirit (God/Goddess) one knows they automatically remove themselves from a level of mind/body/soul awareness.
They become aware the potency of the Spiritual and rarefied level of perception, which is why holistic perception and certainly mind/body/spiritual sex is very rare.
This is why it's absolutely inconsistent to have this degree of perception, and relationship to all things, and to objectify someone.
I think I read this in one of the poems Jim Morrison wrote on LSD.
But haven't you and other been saying that physical attraction alone is objectification.
No. Back when I was asked the difference between attraction and objectification, I clearly stated it's just being realistic when we acknowledge we find someone hot. I then went on to say it's where we take it from there...do we tune out the humanity of the person for personal gratification, or do we acknowledge the whole person.
I admitted attraction to others in that first post...male/female. And I've since fully openly admitted dressing flamboyantly, "sexy" and to attract. I think where it went off track was on the level of fantasy.........
I don't know what others are saying.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But haven't you and other been saying that physical attraction alone is objectification.
*I* said that, as a true form of objectification. if the appreciation does not go beyond the physical, it would be by definition objectification...b/c you are seeing the individual from a purely physical, object, form.
and i do hope you realize, that of course it oftentimes quickly moves on from that.....or it dosn't at all simply b/c it can't, or serves no purpose. i think i wrote ssaid response to jeff. but that's only my opinion on it. but i think you already realize my thoughts on it in any case.
again, if all i have is a picture...or a quick glance in the train....all i can do is physically appreciate/objectify. there is no furthering of the dynamic, no relationship, etc. how can we develop further appreciation of a person if ALL we know is their surface? we can't. thus why, truly...we all objectify ourselves and objectify others to some degree. that does not insinuate that we never fully embrace ourselves or others....just admit that we DO pay attnetion to surfaces as only as well.
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 think the idea is if physical attraction ONLY remains on the level of phsycial attraction and nothing more....it is objectification. your appreciation is at surface-level only. when that physical attraction develops into some sort of interaction, appreciation for the person as a whole...acknoledgment of the whole person, that it is more.
obviously, we CAN'T possibly take 'physical attraction' to another level - and i don't mean simply seually - with EVERYone we happen to find physically attractive. we simply don't have the time or inclination to develop relationships with evry single person we lay eyes on and find attractive, and it would serve no purpose. so many, many times....our 'appreciation' remians at the objectification level, and as it should, a-ok.
i think the 'problem' with objectification is if that is soley it, always....or it becomes problematic for someone to go beyond 'object' and see/appreciate the whole person.
in this day and age of visual assault of pictures, male and female...pretty damn difficult NOT to 'objectify' to some degree. and again, nothing inherently wrong in it.
edit: I did say that when we evolve to a state of holism, then objectification and prostitution will be impossible. No moral judgement...a statement.
I also said that I personally cannot tune out what brings a woman to a dark place to objectify herself to act in porn, and find that sexual. No moral judgment...rather my personal response, prior to judgment.
If you mean attraction happens inevitably, then yes. Objectification is a different matter.
You seem to think evolution is advancement... so if you expect that evolution will eradicate objectification, that indicates it will be an improvement.
Ah, but this is what no one here has been able to explain in a way that makes sense... how are attraction and objectification truly different? I see a lot of people here arguing that just looking at someone and thinking they look sexy is objectifying them because it is just about their outside, not their person. So what is attraction then? Saturnal essentially said the same thing but added that he didn't act on it, and you all started praising him. Mammasan and I have been saying that from the beginning, but people are still fighting us on it.
No. Back when I was asked the difference between attraction and objectification, I clearly stated it's just being realistic when we acknowledge we find someone hot. I then went on to say it's where we take it from there...do we tune out the humanity of the person for personal gratification, or do we acknowledge the whole person.
I admitted attraction to others in that first post...male/female. And I've since fully openly admitted dressing flamboyantly, "sexy" and to attract. I think where it went off track was on the level of fantasy.........
I don't know what others are saying.
I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
You seem to think evolution is advancement... so if you expect that evolution will eradicate objectification, that indicates it will be an improvement.
Advancement is advancement. What I did say is that the only difference between levels of evolution is the person's level of subjective pain. So, for example, one at a holistic level lives with a lot of joy and bliss. One on other levels, more "good"/"bad".
Ah, but this is what no one here has been able to explain in a way that makes sense... how are attraction and objectification truly different? I see a lot of people here arguing that just looking at someone and thinking they look sexy is objectifying them because it is just about their outside, not their person. So what is attraction then? Saturnal essentially said the same thing but added that he didn't act on it, and you all started praising him. Mammasan and I have been saying that from the beginning, but people are still fighting us on it.
Attraction is the natural response. Objectification, as I am using the term, what we do with that attraction... when you look at someone like an object, without regard for who they are as a person (thoughts/feelings/intuitions), and in this context, further, when one tunes the humanity out, and chooses to seek sexual gratification for themselves, with this "object", on whatever level one does so, whether physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.
Even though I am directly saying that I didn't think or state it???
You can believe what you want. Feel free to use my direct quotes. As I said earlier, I'm not responsible for what people read into what I say.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Even though I am directly saying that I didn't think or state it???
You can believe what you want. Feel free to use my direct quotes. As I said earlier, I'm not responsible for what people read into what I say.
Don't get pissy because people misconstrue what you say, maybe you should clarify your points a little better, instead of infusing them with mountains of New Age Psychological theories.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Don't get pissy because people misconstrue what you say, maybe you should clarify your points a little better, instead of infusing them with mountains of New Age Psychological theories.
I told both you and jeffbr that you were not understanding what I said. If you choose to keep up false beliefs of what I say, it's out of my hands.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I told both you and jeffbr that you were not understanding what I said. If you choose to keep up false beliefs of what I say, it's out of my hands.
The problem is that it is impossible to understand what you say because your posts are like a enigma. I feel as if someone took an Eckhart Tolle book put in a blender and then splashed the contents all over my computer screen.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
I'm in complete agreement.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Not if I'm objectifying them for their intelligence as well.
absolutely.
i can engage my body...my mind...my soul...simultaneously, or seperately...i like to live fully.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
But by passing judgment on the field and calling it sick, doesn't that further the cycle? These women are damaged, and desperate. They see only one way out, and take it. So we condemn them for that and reinforce their negative self image as a fuck up with no options. Doesn't it make more sense to accept these as legitimate fields and thus make these women feel at least a little empowered and in control about making that decision? Perhaps that could be the stepping stone to them moving beyond porn or prostitution and into other things.
By all means, condemn the people who prey upon such women and exploit them. But do not confuse those people with the thought that the entire industry/field is itself ipso facto exploitative.
First of all, I'm not ready to marry my daughter to him... I don't have any kids... I'm ready to marry myself to him... get it straight!
Secondly, I believe he said that once he examined it critically he came to the conclusion that it's not okay.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
objectification, in and of itself, does not encompass ONLY 'instrument of sexual pleasure'...it is merely about objectifying. not looking beyond the surface. sexual objetification, absolutely...but objectification, period, not mutually exclusive.
if i look at a picture, an object on it's own...and appreciate the image of a person on it...knowing nothing of the person, just their outer beauty, i am appreciating their beauty, and yes, objectifying them. i really have no choice there, i cannot get to 'know' them thru their picture. just like i cannot get to know anyone if i am watching a DVD of porn, looking at womenmen in a fashion show....admiring someone quickly on the train, on the street, etc.....even if i have seual thoughts of them.....even if i sexually objecify them......i don't see that as 'bad' at all. if i do it to someone in PERSON, one whom i have contact and interact with.....yes, i see it negatively. so even sexual objectification, i don't see as an evil.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
There is always more than one definition to a term.
Perhaps, but we've shifted into a discussion of objectification. By condemning the fields of prostitution and porn, we invalidate the women who choose these professions, for whatever reasons. We say that objectification drives them and that porn and prostitution have no purpose except the objectification of women, thus the women forced into them are dehumanized even by those who wish to help them. You are essentially saying "you cannot be a respected human person and work in porn or be a prostitute." This reinforces their belief that they have no choice and are dehumanized.
Does it not make more sense to say that these are legitimate choices for women to make and that they can choose these fields willingly, thus making a desperate choice empowering at least in some sense?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's the crux of the debate... what exactly is "it" that he decided is not ok? No one seems to know what "it" is... ie how much objectification is ok or what kind is acceptable. There are some people here saying there's nothing inherently wrong with it. There are others saying sure it's natural and not inherently bad, but we should still try to eradicate it. I see the latter as a contradiction. And I still fail to see why sexuality is so bad that it is utterly wrong to see an attractive person and think "I would derive great pleasure from sexual coupling with that person" but it is perfectly acceptable as long as you think to yourself at the end "oh yeah, his/her mind is probably great too."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well you have to give me a little slack, since you yourself stated that I lack the ability to comprehend the matter.
I believe that mammasan and I have been saying this repeatedly throughout this thread. But some here continue to insist that sexual objectification should be eradicated and you yourself indicated that it will be a good thing when objectification no longer occurs anywhere. We have been saying objectification happens inevitably and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't let it influence your actions or treat others with disrespect. We've been saying this for 10 pages now and have been told repeatedly that we're wrong and we don't understand.
They become aware the potency of the Spiritual and rarefied level of perception, which is why holistic perception and certainly mind/body/spiritual sex is very rare.
This is why it's absolutely inconsistent to have this degree of perception, and relationship to all things, and to objectify someone.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
edit: I did say that when we evolve to a state of holism, then objectification and prostitution will be impossible. No moral judgement...a statement.
I also said that I personally cannot tune out what brings a woman to a dark place to objectify herself to act in porn, and find that sexual. No moral judgment...rather my personal response, prior to judgment.
If you mean attraction happens inevitably, then yes. Objectification is a different matter.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But haven't you and other been saying that physical attraction alone is objectification.
I think I read this in one of the poems Jim Morrison wrote on LSD.
I admitted attraction to others in that first post...male/female. And I've since fully openly admitted dressing flamboyantly, "sexy" and to attract. I think where it went off track was on the level of fantasy.........
I don't know what others are saying.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
*I* said that, as a true form of objectification. if the appreciation does not go beyond the physical, it would be by definition objectification...b/c you are seeing the individual from a purely physical, object, form.
and i do hope you realize, that of course it oftentimes quickly moves on from that.....or it dosn't at all simply b/c it can't, or serves no purpose. i think i wrote ssaid response to jeff. but that's only my opinion on it. but i think you already realize my thoughts on it in any case.
again, if all i have is a picture...or a quick glance in the train....all i can do is physically appreciate/objectify. there is no furthering of the dynamic, no relationship, etc. how can we develop further appreciation of a person if ALL we know is their surface? we can't. thus why, truly...we all objectify ourselves and objectify others to some degree. that does not insinuate that we never fully embrace ourselves or others....just admit that we DO pay attnetion to surfaces as only as well.
hereya go:
and...time for lunch!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You seem to think evolution is advancement... so if you expect that evolution will eradicate objectification, that indicates it will be an improvement.
Ah, but this is what no one here has been able to explain in a way that makes sense... how are attraction and objectification truly different? I see a lot of people here arguing that just looking at someone and thinking they look sexy is objectifying them because it is just about their outside, not their person. So what is attraction then? Saturnal essentially said the same thing but added that he didn't act on it, and you all started praising him. Mammasan and I have been saying that from the beginning, but people are still fighting us on it.
I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.
Attraction is the natural response. Objectification, as I am using the term, what we do with that attraction... when you look at someone like an object, without regard for who they are as a person (thoughts/feelings/intuitions), and in this context, further, when one tunes the humanity out, and chooses to seek sexual gratification for themselves, with this "object", on whatever level one does so, whether physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You can believe what you want. Feel free to use my direct quotes. As I said earlier, I'm not responsible for what people read into what I say.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Don't get pissy because people misconstrue what you say, maybe you should clarify your points a little better, instead of infusing them with mountains of New Age Psychological theories.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The problem is that it is impossible to understand what you say because your posts are like a enigma. I feel as if someone took an Eckhart Tolle book put in a blender and then splashed the contents all over my computer screen.