1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Being a feminist while also being pro male sexuality

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Jan 12, 2011.

  1. SKILORD

    SKILORD Insurgent

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,294
    Location:
    Behind you!
    That's a nifty quote.

    -

    I understand the OP's phobia of objectification, but to put to much emphasis on it from this side is as bad as to do so from a more conservative angle, especially if it puts women on too much of a pedestal. They don't deserve or for the most part understand that, and you will only find it a frustration, tricks is just people like you or me. :)lol: )

    What do I do, to resolve the problems of objectification is to counter it with anthropromorphism. If you treat objects like you have some concern for their wellbeing and respect them then it is easy to treat human beings like you have some concern for their wellbeing and respect them.
     
  2. galdre

    galdre Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,859
    there is a difference between between attracted to someone and treating that person as an object - sexual attraction does not necessarily objectify

    probably already been said; I'm too lazy to read the whole thread
     
  3. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    22,948
    Location:
    Montana
    Judith Butler would like a word with you.
     
  4. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    22,948
    Location:
    Montana
    No, not really. There's no phobia. There's the simple problem that feminists have made a good point that this is bad while at the same time they fail to realize that this is fine. That while using women as sex objects keeps women down, sex objectification is not actually an intrinsic wrong and on some level it's womens' own biological "fault" that they don't get the same rise out of it men do. If putting men nearly naked on on a link got more women to click the link because they were excited, then the enterprising entrepreneur would have done that a looong time ago. Men could be equally objectified but there's simply a lack of demand, regardless of social norms.

    The problem is that because of the inherent inequality of men are happy seeing women objectified, but women don't get the same pleasure, women can be harmed by this unequal objectification. However that objectification itself isn't innately wrong. My question is how do we work this out.
     
  5. SKILORD

    SKILORD Insurgent

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,294
    Location:
    Behind you!
    Women might not generally objectify men as readily in a sexual manner but I would still have to say that they can and do objectify men.

    The most cliche' and worn out example is also probably the best...


    Have you ever felt like a walking credit card?

    I'm not saying all women do it, but then again not all men objectify the women they interact with. It is a mixed bag of course, and finding someone worthwhile is random and often tedious, but it is an interesting minigame and an excellent diversion from the work of a life.
     
  6. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    22,948
    Location:
    Montana
    Feminism is against using men as a walking credit card as well, so I'm not really sure what the significance is. And I've had the fortune of having the women I'm sleeping with to pay for my dinner quite frequently. It must be my roguish charm.

    But back to the subject at hand...
     
  7. SKILORD

    SKILORD Insurgent

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,294
    Location:
    Behind you!
    Well, then date feminists, pimpin.

    problem solved /thread
     
  8. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,835
     
  9. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,254
    Location:
    Scotland
    I disagree; objectification is always wrong, because it subordinates personal, intellectual and emotional attributes to physical ones acts as a denial of agency- in short, depersonalisation. What you seem to be describing is what I would term "sexualisation", which is more general and does not necessarily involve depersonalisation; sexualisation no more demands objectification than objectification demands sexualisation (e.g. the "wealth objectification" referenced by Skilord). The two are heavily intertwined, of course, and the line between the two can often be somewhat subjective, but I would argue that a distinction can be, at least, in essence.

    It is also worth remembering that objectification is social, and not just individual; individual acts contribute to a social context in which people are reduced to objects, but they do not, in themselves, radiate any sort of objecto-beams which turn people into cyborgs. (Which is not to say that individual acts can not lead to a person accepting their objectification and suppressing their full personhood, but that this results from broader cultural expectations to do so.) That is why it is necessary to discuss the social and cultural context of any act, media, etc. and how it engages with, contributes to or reflects that context, rather than simply going through a list and ticking the contents off as "pro-feminist" or "anti-feminist", as some feminists are a little over-prone to doing.
     
  10. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    22,948
    Location:
    Montana
    I haven't needed to. Female feminists have, as a group, not liked me much :p But not sure why that's a /thread since it has nothing to do with the thread.

    This is insignificant. I thought about including it in my last post but then decided nobody would care to be so pedantic, for lack of a more diplomatic word.

    I agree with your second paragraph. I guess I never alluded to that point in writing even though it was in the back of my mind. But I don't understand how depersonalization is always wrong. Sometimes it is appropriate to engage with that which is human without engaging in that with is persons, am I not right?
     
  11. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,254
    Location:
    Scotland
    I honestly can't think of a scenario in which this would be the case... :confused:
     
  12. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,471
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    But they DO get the same rise out of it, even not more so.

    At least as much objectification of women is FOR women. Look at the supermarket aisle. Most of that exploitative, "look at her body, OMG" crap is directed at women. Not to mention men are also objectified as handsome accessories (like handbags). And babies too (accessories to appear "complete").

    Men's magazines kind of objectify other men but more often they focus at least somewhat on these men's character & achievements.

    And of course there's the fact that it's women who sell their images to be objectified.

    Men's naked bodies aren't particularly objectified but men are just as much as women.

    Again, women objectify as much if not more so than men. Again, visit a supermarket & pay attention to the target audience. Men enjoy seeing a naked/near-naked female body with no strings attached (objectification if you will) but women are far more addicted to objectification stretching far beyond just sexuality.
     
  13. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    22,948
    Location:
    Montana
    pornography, unless you think that's bad.

    I hear your argument, and I don't disagree. You definitely brought up a good point in this post and your previous one. I think much females' objectifying of men or other women is more cultural in nature than men objectifying women and their bodies. But feminism isn't about men versus women so that's not exactly what this thread is about. It's more about how to marry the goals of feminism with human nature, without denying or vilifying that human nature. Otherwise feminism because any other useless religion.
     
  14. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,835
    I could argue that, but I'll instead replace it with an objection far more difficult to dismiss: what about the "house-made" being uploaded and shared in the Internet? Some people claim that it will kill the traditional porn industry altogether. This forum may be too prudish (I never know, with americans) for me to quite examples, but I'm sure you can find evidence of this change.

    So: are these up-loaders evil men and women because they "objectify" themselves? Or are the feminists just full of it with the whole "objectification" talk?
     
  15. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,471
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Thanks. I dunno though, in all cultures women adorn their bodies & spent a lot of time on them, more so than men. But certainly not to the degree as in this one or with the degree of shame, body-obsession or comparison (usually with photoshops). I wrote a poem once about a world without mirrors & how nice it might be.

    I think the nature of the word is inherently limiting. The problem with objectification isn't a female issue or a male issue, it's a societal issue, advertising run rampant, playing with emotions of both men & women. There are no real limits on it (except perhaps you can't show certain body parts or make directly false claims though "open happiness" is pretty damn false, IMO).

    There are very few issues anymore that are strictly women's issues or men's issues. That's why I think focusing on human rights & well being is going to attract more support that framing something as a female issue (or a black issue, etc.).
     
  16. Shadylookin

    Shadylookin master debater

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Messages:
    6,719
    Location:
    eternal damnation
    I believe in legal equality for men and women

    I don't think objectification has anything to do with it. Objectification i.e. using a person for their skills/talents/attributes without a real desire to make further emotional connection is inevitable.

    Gas station attendant is just a Fuel Object, The bank teller a money object, the paper boy a news object, the cop a safety object, the model you like to gander at a sex object.

    It's not a matter of being a jerk it's just impossible for anyone to really care about every single individual you come in contact with.
     
  17. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,835
    Oh, good, finally someone shows up with some common sense! And I finally get a simple definition of "objectification" too.
     
  18. kiwitt

    kiwitt Road to War Modder

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,548
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ (GMT+12)
    Everytime "Feminism" comes up for discussion I am reminded of this poster ...



    It seems some women can accept the fact that most men want to look at them and others do not.

    For me personally ... I believe women must have equal rights ... but they can look good if they want to as well (as can men). It's a free world and people do not need to change their behaviour if it does not harm. (NOTE: I am concerned about some women taking the "looking good" aspect too far ... anorexia, bulimia, plastic surgery, etc.)
     
  19. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,254
    Location:
    Scotland
    I don't believe that pornography is necessarily objectifying. As I said, I think that it is wise to draw a distinction between "objectification" and "sexualisation"- "objectification" would mean that the personal attributes of an individual are rendered secondary to their physical attributes, while "sexualisation" merely means that those physical attributes are engaged with in a sexualised manner. (No, not like that! ...Except, technically, yes, exactly like that. :mischief:)

    Well, it can be said that any given piece of amateur pornography exists within a culture of objectification and, as such, viewers may objectify the participants, but that by no means suggests that the participants were complicit in this objectification- there wouldn't be self-described pro-feminist pornography if that was the case. As I said, objectification is best addressed as a social norm, rather than as an individual relationship.

    It may be worth noting that many pro-porn feminists (and even some nominally anti-porn ones) view amateur pornography as a good way of bypassing the more problematic content of mainstream pornography, if you don't fancy paying for professional pro-women stuff.

    Karl Marx disagrees. :p
     

Share This Page