Prostitution

_

angelica wrote:

....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!!!!!!!

Yeah, but he said a few posts later that he's in a relationship anyway. :(

Congratulations on becoming a Grandma!!

decides2dream

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?

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.

jeffbr

Saturnal wrote:

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.

So you are comfortable with the notion that we can somehow evolve past our biology, and no longer feel physical attraction? And that would be a good thing for the species?

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

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.

this does not in any way answer my question. which is unsurprsing, and usally why i refrain from asking. you stated that when one lives holistically, they will cease to objectify. i asked why...and honestly, how? i don't consider it 'better' or 'worse'...but these are the confines of our language.

anyhoo, nevermind....but thanks for the response.

jeffbr

decides2dream wrote:

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.

Good explanation. Thanks for helping clarify.

angelica

scb wrote:

Yeah, but he said a few posts later that he's in a relationship anyway. :(

Any raised consciousness that affects one woman, affects us all!

Congratulations on becoming a Grandma!!

Thanks!

_

decides2dream wrote:

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.

But aren't prostitutes and women in porn more likely to have substance abuse problems or to have been sexually abused?

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

this does not in any way answer my question. which is unsurprsing, and usally why i refrain from asking. you stated that when one lives holistically, they will cease to objectify. i asked why...and honestly, how? i don't consider it 'better' or 'worse'...but these are the confines of our language.

anyhoo, nevermind....but thanks for the response.

I'm really not interested in a debate on the subject.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

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.

EXACTLY.



and call me a base animal, it's fine ....but i most certainly have looked at a completely hot, sexy man and for a split second thought.....whoa.........*edited for all ages board*

i also didn't realize that the definition of objectification, alone, meant THAT. 'sexual objectification' OK, but i didn't think we were only discussing that issue, alone.

decides2dream

scb wrote:

But aren't prostitutes and women in porn more likely to have substance abuse problems or to have been sexually abused?

possibly....i think that could well be true. but that still does not make a cause/effect relationship directly. the abuse came FIRST, no? and i would also go on to say i don't think ALL men or women who wee seually abused woud choose porn or prostitution.

my own pov on the subjet is simply that while there may be a good # of people who choose to work in prostitution or pornography and may've been abused in some way....it in no way means that such acts should remain illegal. that's all.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

EXACTLY.



and call me a base animal, it's fine ....but i most certainly have looked at a completely hot, sexy man and for a split second thought.....whoa.........*edited for all ages board*

i also didn't realize that the definition of objectification, alone, meant THAT. 'sexual objectification' OK, but i didn't think we were only discussing that issue, alone.

I should have clarified that I was discussing sexual objectification. And no you are not a base animal simply because you have fantasized about attractive men, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I guess you and I haven't reached that holistic level yet

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

So you are comfortable with the notion that we can somehow evolve past our biology, and no longer feel physical attraction? And that would be a good thing for the species?

It sounded like he was talking about bringing consciousness to that biology. that's harmonizing with one's varying aspects. That's why wholeness, balance and the resulting synergy is so amazingly ... hot!

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

I'm really not interested in a debate on the subject.

Politics, current events - reasoned debate and discussion - we can all learn something new.



nor was i.
i was asking a question, for 'reasoned discussion'....to 'learn something new'....i wanted to understand what you meant. not to debate it, but to see what you meant by that statement, the whys and hows of it, nothing more. as i said, i realized after the fact it was silly of me to bother, i won't again in the future...bc this is the exact response to direct questioning. you don't want to share your personal understanding on a topic, that's fine. it doesn't much illuminate a pov without context.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jeffbr wrote:

So you are comfortable with the notion that we can somehow evolve past our biology, and no longer feel physical attraction? And that would be a good thing for the species?

I'm saying that biological instinct doesn't have to drive our actions and thoughts. Just because we have a biological instinct for something doesn't automatically make it right, and it doesn't automatically make it silly for us to evolve past it.

_

unifiedscene wrote:

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?

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.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

I should have clarified that I was discussing sexual objectification. And no you are not a base animal simply because you have fantasized about attractive men, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I guess you and I haven't reached that holistic level yet

BODY/mind/soul


i'd say we have.



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.

_

decides2dream wrote:

why?
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'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.

unifiedscene

scb wrote:

But aren't prostitutes and women in porn more likely to have substance abuse problems or to have been sexually abused?

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.

jeffbr

Saturnal wrote:

I'm saying that biological instinct doesn't have to drive our actions and thoughts. Just because we have a biological instinct for something doesn't automatically make it right, and it doesn't automatically make it silly for us to evolve past it.

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.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

BODY/mind/soul


i'd say we have.

Unless you're copping to objectification...which by definition leaves out mind/soul....;)