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.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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.
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".
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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?
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.
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
....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. :(
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.
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?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
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.
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.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
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.
But aren't prostitutes and women in porn more likely to have substance abuse problems or to have been sexually abused?
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
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.
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
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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!
"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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
Don't listen to me I obviously don't have the ability to comprehend the subject.
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.
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".
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
cross the river to the eastside
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
Have you ever admired a handsome man and had a momentary thought of their potential for a great night in bed?
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah, but he said a few posts later that he's in a relationship anyway. :(
Congratulations on becoming a Grandma!!
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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?
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Good explanation. Thanks for helping clarify.
Thanks!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But aren't prostitutes and women in porn more likely to have substance abuse problems or to have been sexually abused?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
EXACTLY.
and call me a base animal, it's fine
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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.
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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.
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.
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!