The Morality of Bodily Objectification

[scem0]

Objectification refers to the way in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a human being (in this sense, it is a synonym of reification). This is commonly used to refer to the way the mass media, in particular advertising, is perceived by some as portraying women as sex objects. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification)

I'm curious to know what people think about objectification. Many people get angry at models, strippers, etc. saying "Why do they let people objectify them like that?" Some people even would say that they are objectifying themselves by doing the jobs they do.

Do you consider it immoral to put yourself in a position to be objectified?

Do you consider it immoral to objectify people you have never met or talked to?

Do you consider it immoral to objectify people you know?

Other thoughts?

e

[Blue Velvet]

Immorality is an unhelpful and very strange term to use in the context of this discussion.

[jelloshotsrule]

this is a tough call. like you said, you'll get people saying that the model/actor/actress is empowering themselves through the role. using their sexuality as a sort of control and power. then you'll have others saying they are "letting themselves" be used for sexual purposes.

i'm not sure what i think, though i guess my general opinion of morality (or right/wrong) is that a porn star who has sex with many many many partners, etc, is not someone i'd hold in too high regard. that's my own personal values coming into play though. whereas a "soft core" porn model or whatever who doesn't interact with someone else (or not "really" anyways) wouldn't be as "bad"... again, bad is relative, and based on my views. i'm not one to judge either way.

[mactastic]

Without objectification on some level the species would die out, no? Lust and the physical gratification of sex are a large part of what drives the reproductive process.

So some level of objectification is ok, but there is also an inappropriate level of is as well. People that can only deal with someone they've objectified are the extreme example there.

[leekohler]

I personally love objectifying and being objectified. :) It's the way the game is played, no matter how you look at it. We can deny it all we want, but it is fact.

And just a note: when I was younger and more idealistic, I was against all forms of objectification and tried to steer clear of all that stuff. I was miserable. I'm having more fun now. :)

[gekko513]

Without objectification on some level the species would die out, no? Lust and the physical gratification of sex are a large part of what drives the reproductive process.
Without answering whether objectification is wrong or right on any level, I'd say that the answer to your first question is no, the species wouldn't die out without objectification.

It is entirely possible to imagine a sexual drive driven by the recognition of and attraction to a particular human being, an individual, instead of to an objectified version of that individual.

I'm not trying to say that sexual attraction is tied to an individual as opposed to a generalised idea of a sexy human object, just that objectification isn't necessary for reproduction.

I personally love objectifying and being objectified. It's the way the game is played, no matter how you look at it. We can deny it all we want, but it is fact.

And just a note: when I was younger and more idealistic, I was against all forms of objectification and tried to steer clear of all that stuff. I was miserable. I'm having more fun now.
My own view is a bit more nuanced than this. I don't think it has to be an all or nothing. I think both extremes can be unhealthy / make people miserable in different ways.

[mactastic]

Without answering whether objectification is wrong or right on any level, I'd say that the answer to your first question is no, the species wouldn't die out without objectification.

It is entirely possible to imagine a sexual drive driven by the recognition of and attraction to a particular human being, an individual, instead of to an objectified version of that individual.

I'm not trying to say that sexual attraction is tied to an individual as opposed to a generalised idea of a sexy human object, just that objectification isn't necessary for reproduction.
I suppose you'll have to define objectification. My working definition is that of pure physical attraction -- lust without love if you will.

And seeing all the many ways plants and animals present themselves (showy, not deeply emotional beings) during mating strongly leads me to believe that that same physical attractivness plays a role in our relationships. I'm not saying it's the only one, or that you can't develop an intense relationship with someone without a physical attraction, just that it often forms a basis for an initial attraction that can lead to something more.

[Thanatoast]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that lust is by definition objectification.

I do think that we as a society would be a lot healthier if we considered sex to be a sacred act (not by the christian definition) instead of a dirty habit.

(The christian crack is because they say married sex is sacred but non-married sex is dirty. Therefore they're implying that sex is bad and marriage is good, independent of eachother. I think this is crap.)

[gekko513]

Re mactastic:
Yeah, sure, I also think that there is a large portion of non-personal attraction involved in human sex drive. I'm just pointing out that we could still have reproduced as a race even if we evolved into losing all non-personal sexual attraction in favour of a biological attraction that didn't trigger until after you developed psychological ties to a person.

[XNine]

You know what? I'd rather see a girl bending over in front of me than bloody carcasses and dead bodies of children on the news.

If a girl (or guy) wants to take it off and have people look at them, then so be it. I see nothing wrong with it at all.

[leekohler]

You know what? I'd rather see a girl bending over in front of me than bloody carcasses and dead bodies of children on the news.

If a girl (or guy) wants to take it off and have people look at them, then so be it. I see nothing wrong with it at all.

Bingo. Nor do I. ;)

[mactastic]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that lust is by definition objectification.
So let's sort out what objectification is then. I'd call it pure lust -- you've turned the person into nothing but a physical object with no regard for what they think or feel or care about.

But I'm open to amending that definition.

[mactastic]

You know what? I'd rather see a girl bending over in front of me than bloody carcasses and dead bodies of children on the news.

If a girl (or guy) wants to take it off and have people look at them, then so be it. I see nothing wrong with it at all.
Yeah, I have no problem with it either. The only problem comes in when people are objectifying others and are unable to form any other type of connection with them.

I've met people like that, they generally have a hard time with relationships.

[tristan]

Objectification is just fantasy. Most of us guys know that if we ever got that girl on TV home, she'd tell us to pick up our clothes and seriously take out the trash for god's sake! :D

I think models, strippers, booth babes, whatever are basically actors or performers, creating an image that we know isn't real but is fun to think about. I don't see the harm, and whether I know the person doesn't make any difference.

And besides, I don't think I've ever bought anything because I liked the model in the picture.

[celebrian23]

depends. I think it can be immoral. But there are times when I don't think that too. You have to know I'm one of "those christians" as it was put. I think the problem lies in when we take this "image" the person has formed and put that as the priority instead of seeing it's just what's they do.

[Agathon]

Objectification usually means treating someone as a thing and not a person.

In other words, you treat the object as a means to your own end and not an end in itself.

For example: slavery.

[scem0]

Yeah, I have no problem with it either. The only problem comes in when people are objectifying others and are unable to form any other type of connection with them.

I've met people like that, they generally have a hard time with relationships.

I agree.

I am in a position where I let myself be objectified all the time. I'm a go-go boy/striper/exotic dancer/whatever the hell you want to call me. I dance in skimpy underwear on stage and I get tipped :). I don't mind at all! Its fun! It turns me on to be looked at in such a sexual way.

But I agree, we can't let objectification get out of control. When you objectify to the point where you can't form good relationships, be them platonic or not, it becomes unhealthy.

Although I think it's fun to be objectified, I'd never be in a relationship of any kind with someone who views me as a physical object.

I objectify other people to some degree, but that's not near as much fun as letting other people objectify you :). I don't feel guilty about objectifying Vin Diesel though - he's such a hunk! But it's not complete objectification, I also like his personality a lot, he seems very nice.

So I personally don't find anything wrong with objectification as long as it doesn't get in the way of meaningful relationships.

e

[Agathon]

I agree.

I am in a position where I let myself be objectified all the time. I'm a go-go boy/striper/exotic dancer/whatever the hell you want to call me. I dance in skimpy underwear on stage and I get tipped :). I don't mind at all! Its fun! It turns me on to be looked at in such a sexual way.

But I agree, we can't let objectification get out of control. When you objectify to the point where you can't form good relationships, be them platonic or not, it becomes unhealthy.

Although I think it's fun to be objectified, I'd never be in a relationship of any kind with someone who views me as a physical object.

I objectify other people to some degree, but that's not near as much fun as letting other people objectify you :). I don't feel guilty about objectifying Vin Diesel though - he's such a hunk! But it's not complete objectification, I also like his personality a lot, he seems very nice.

So I personally don't find anything wrong with objectification as long as it doesn't get in the way of meaningful relationships.

e

What's wrong here is not you. You are engaging in this voluntarily.

However, the customers are more than likely treating you as an object, hence the fault lies with them.

It's wrong to treat people that way, but it's also wrong to think that way about people.

[scem0]

However, the customers are more than likely treating you as an object, hence the fault lies with them.

It's wrong to treat people that way, but it's also wrong to think that way about people.

What makes you say that?

I don't think any of the people are wrong for looking at me this way. They have never talked to me, the only thing they have to value in me is my body. It's completely harmless for them to look at me.

e

[blackfox]

ooooo...excellent topic before I head out to the bars.

I guess my opinion falls in line with mactastics' (as I see it), in that a certain amount of objectivication is par for the course with male-female interaction (heterosexually-speaking) - that it is probably tied into our more base instincts - and as such is practical.

I guess the problem is really narcissism. Or perhaps it's just me...

[fistful]

I find it more offensive objectifying women as house maids in about 90% house hold cleaning ads. Maybe that's their target demographic but it's not like men can't and/or don't clean up after themselves.

Sexual objectification is much too carnal, subconscious to be controlled imo so it's best to either accept it as a fact of life, ignore it or shut yourself away if you don't like it.

[scem0]

Sexual objectification is much too carnal, subconscious to be controlled imo so it's best to either except it as a fact of life, ignore it or shut yourself away if you don't like it.

But if it could be controlled would you support controlling it?

I wouldn't, personally. I think it's fun! It's fun to objectify others to some degree. It's fun to go to a club, see a hot stripper and watch them. Or to watch a Brittney Spears video, etc. But it's more fun to be objectified. I love it! When I'm dancing and a guy looks at me with lusty eyes, it makes me really happy. I don't think "that guy has no respect for me! How dare he look at me that way?". I think "yeah, you want me." :p

I guess it's an ego trip. Plus, it's fun to be sexual! I love being nearly naked in front of so many people. It's exciting. It's raunchy. It's trashy (I love trashy stuff :D). I always go home feeling sexually content, which is kind of odd. I'm never horny after a night of go-go dancing. All the objectification actually fulfills my horniness :p.

I don't know where I'm going with this. But all the dancing I do has only resulted in positives for me and, I think, for the people who watch/objectify me. The only people negatively effected are the drunk people who tip me more than they can afford and wake up and wonder where their money went ;).

e

[fistful]

But if it could be controlled would you support controlling

I suppose they could try but when it comes down to it you can't control what people think (at least yet) or what they do. Let's say they enforced a ban on exotic dancing, it would just go underground like everything else they try to ban.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't. There is definitely a line to be crossed but to be perfectly honest I don't really care. There's also a time and a place and I think most people know when it's appropriate or not.

[leekohler]

I suppose they could try but when it comes down to it you can't control what people think (at least yet) or what they do. Let's say they enforced a ban on exotic dancing, it would just go underground like everything else they try to ban.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't. There is definitely a line to be crossed but to be perfectly honest I don't really care. There's also a time and a place and I think most people know when it's appropriate or not.

I agree. And BTW my friend, straight men do NOT clean up after themselves. :) They rely on women or us homos to do it. :) And as for decorating sense, forget it. ;) Straight boys, no matter how much money they make, need help. ;)

But also, I think the cleaning thing happens when a man and a woman get married. Ever seen a a bachelorette pad? EEK! The only thing that's just as scary is a bachelor pad. ;)

Honestly, that's why staright men and women need each other. It's as if you both get conscious about the homestead when you guys get married. :)

[gekko513]

I agree. And BTW my friend, straight men do NOT clean up after themselves. :) They rely on women or us homos to do it. :) And as for decorating sense, forget it. ;) Straight boys, no matter how much money they make, need help. ;)
Is this sarcasm? I don't see it. If it's half serious despite the winky smilies, it's wrong. Maybe it's true as a generalisation of our culture, but not as an absolute. BTW, you're quoting the wrong post. At first I didn't see what this post had to do with this thread at all.

[leekohler]

Is this sarcasm? I don't see it. If it's half serious despite the winky smilies, it's wrong. Maybe it's true as a generalisation of our culture, but not as an absolute. BTW, you're quoting the wrong post. At first I didn't see what this post had to do with this thread at all.

No- I was quite serious. American straight men are dreadful at decorating. Now as far as Norway is concerned, I'm sure you guys are better. :)

Most straight guys here, as nice as they can be- are Neanderthals. ;) They need a bit of help. :) Doesn't mean I don't love them.

[Queso]

No- I was quite serious. American straight men are dreadful at decorating. Now as far as Norway is concerned, I'm sure you guys are better. :)
And there's the rub. Straight European men would get lambasted all the time in the USA for behaving "Queer". You know our straights even go the theatre or the opera if they want? And they can wear moisturiser!! :)

I feel a bit sorry for straight men to be honest. There's this constant wall of machismo they spend their lives hiding behind, which means they have to suppress so many things they actually enjoy for fear of what others around them might think. Much better just to follow what you like.

Of course, if all they like is beer, big cars and sports, they are at least being honest to themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that :D

[gekko513]

With so many talented heterosexual male artists, architects, photographers, designers and so on in the US, I'm sure there are enough straight men with a well developed aesthetic sense that some of them are also decent at decorating, and I'm also sure there are lots of American men who like to keep it tidy around themselves.

I'm gay and I know most straight men are equal or better than me at both decorating and keeping it tidy.

Perhaps Americans are more than averagely happy about creating stereotypes, but I'm sure that not all abide by them

[MACDRIVE]

Gay guys that get up on top of a table and start shaking their stuff in a provocative manner.. is immoral yes. :D

[satty]

I feel a bit sorry for straight men to be honest.

Thanks.


There's this constant wall of machismo they spend their lives hiding behind, which means they have to suppress so many things they actually enjoy for fear of what others around them might think. Much better just to follow what you like.

Not sure about that. You might describe the majority, but I know a high number of exceptions.

[satty]

...I'm gay and I know most straight men are equal or better than me at both decorating and keeping it tidy.
...

Decorating is something totally subjective. It depends on everyone's taste, which often is f*cked up by the tsunami waves of advertising nowadays. I don't know how someone can make a general link between "decorating" and "sexuality".

Regarding the tidyness: You obviously can't see my bedroom at the moment :)

[blackfox]

As long as we're throwing out completely crappy stereotypes, I hereby posit :

That gay men are more likely to be (a) tidy, and (b) design and fashion conscious, because they are (a) more likely to be promiscious, and want to impress shallow partners (deduced)with shiny, well-placed things, and (b) they enjoy objectifying said objects.

This, of course, flys in the face of the gay-club bathroom stereotype.

Completely unrelated to the above (but somewhat to the thread), any conjecture on the sterotype(s) of men objectifying people they are physically attracted to versus personifying important objects like cars?

The mind reels...and my stereotype is Onkyo.

[scem0]

I'm gunna have to disagree with Lee on this one :).

I think the tidiness stereotype is bull. I ain't all that tidy and I'm a 6 on the kinsey scale :). I'm not messy either, but I don't keep my things immaculate. My room mate, who is straight, keeps all his stuff twice as tidy as me. I don't think gay men are any better at decorating than straight men too, I think they are just more prone to decorate because they are encouraged to do so by stereotypes. Likewise, straight men are encouraged to repress their decorating genes because of their stereotypes. I think all the stereotypes about gay men are bull, when they appear to be true (like the stereotype of gay men being effeminate) it's usually because the guy feels like that's his role to fill. Some of the stereotypes arise from natural causes, like the promiscuity stereotype. Men are hornier than women, it takes two to tango, and when the two are both men, they tend to tango a lot. When one has to be a woman, they generally tango less. But still, not every gay man fits that stereotype. I, for one, am not too fond of one night stands and promiscuous sex. I'd rather masturbate and not go through all the trouble, work, and awkwardness of all the steps leading up to sex, and then the actual act of sex tends not to be much fun when I don't really know the guy.

We are totally digressing, but I personally don't mind.

e

[Queso]

I think the tidiness stereotype is bull. I ain't all that tidy and I'm a 6 on the kinsey scale :). I'm not messy either, but I don't keep my things immaculate.
But (throwing another stereotype into the ring) of course you're messy. You're a student! :D

Not sure about that. You might describe the majority, but I know a high number of exceptions.
Isn't there a phrase for those guys though? Honorary Gay?