Prostitution

mammasan

jeffbr wrote:

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.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

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!

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am curious, what exactly do people think is the difference between appreciating someone's beauty and objectifying them?

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...

unifiedscene

scb wrote:

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?

_

decides2dream wrote:

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.

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

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?

mammasan

angelica wrote:

Pay attention! there's a whole line of this questioning already!

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...

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.

unifiedscene

angelica wrote:

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?

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

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.

scw156

i'll vote for it to be illegal. Just because I will never go to a prostitute and I want everyone who does to have a tough time.

Im an ass like that

decides2dream

scb wrote:

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.

mammasan

jeffbr wrote:

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.

Don't listen to me I obviously don't have the ability to comprehend the subject.

unifiedscene

scb wrote:

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.

I think she was asking if you seriously believed that if objectification was stopped, there would never again be a single act of prostitution, as you said.

_

mammasan wrote:

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 is an intersting point. Maybe there is a difference between objectifying and admiring. Being a heterosexual woman, I am capable of admiring the beauty of other women. But the difference is that I don't think of them as possible "instruments of sexual pleasure".

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

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?

I don't create the understandings of developmental and evolutionary psychology. And yet the fields exist plainly and clearly, including what their studies show. The one model I am most familiar with shows those living at a holistic place as being less than one percent of the population. It's not the norm at this time, to be sure.

You are the one adding "better" and "bad" to the equation. To me, it's about evolution. At base. Before morality is added on. Even though I have personally evolved through many of these phases myself, I don't consider any one "better" or "worse" except due to my own personal sense of happiness of pain at different degrees. They were all certainly valid places, and I love and understand who I was at each stage, no judgment.

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

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.

you obviously missed the whole part about oppression and power. men are not being oppressed by paying to go to a party. nothing i've said would indicate they're being oppressed in that situation. and if that upsets so much, why don't you do something about it? and i'm if wrong about why women get free drinks then tell me why they do. honestly i'm dying to know.

edit: i also know plenty of responsible people here in the states, thanks. and thankfully know plenty who aren't so ignorant and quick to make blame the victim statements. not so sad, really, as you. and i guess i have another reason to be happy in my culture---there is not systemic cover charge inequality that i'm caught up in. i don't go to clubs like that.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

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.

If you don't understand the differentiation, then, as I stated it, fair enough.

mammasan

scb wrote:

This is an intersting point. Maybe there is a difference between objectifying and admiring. Being a heterosexual woman, I am capable of admiring the beauty of other women. But the difference is that I don't think of them as possible "instruments of sexual pleasure".

It's not about thinking of them as instruments of sexual pleasure but thinking of them as ONLY instrument of sexual pleasure. That to me is sexual objectification.

unifiedscene

scb wrote:

This is an intersting point. Maybe there is a difference between objectifying and admiring. Being a heterosexual woman, I am capable of admiring the beauty of other women. But the difference is that I don't think of them as possible "instruments of sexual pleasure".

Have you ever admired a handsome man and had a momentary thought of their potential for a great night in bed?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jeffbr wrote:

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.

It's not silly at all. Haven't you ever been so mad at someone, you wanted to kill them? That's biological instinct too, but we don't say it's silly to restrain ourselves because it's wrong to kill. Haven't you ever been in an intimate situation that you wanted to take all the way, but your partner didn't? That's biological too, but we don't say it's silly not to rape.

I'm not saying objectification compares to murder and rape, but the argument that "it's biological so that makes it ok" doesn't really hold up for me.

angelica

scb wrote:

This is an intersting point. Maybe there is a difference between objectifying and admiring. Being a heterosexual woman, I am capable of admiring the beauty of other women. But the difference is that I don't think of them as possible "instruments of sexual pleasure".

I have clearly stated that I have sought and have appreciated the attentions of men based on my appearance. One would call me a liar if I said otherwise, if they knew me, or even saw my myspace! That's very different than objectification.