Is sexual objectification of women real and is it really bad?
I apologise for the provocative title. It is provocative, but it is an accurate summary of this thread. Before I start I just want to make it clear that this is not a strongly held view of mine, and in some sense it isn't even a view at all. It is just the thoughts that are playing around in my head after in interesting discussion on Facebook and I want some feedback. I say it isn't really a view, because my stance on this topic is really agnosticism: I wouldn't say that sexual objectification doesn't happen and I wouldn't say that it isn't bad; I'm just not convinced that it does happen to an unequal degree and I'm not convinced it is really bad. BUT I am fully open to convincing, so please go ahead. In the strict sense of equality only, I should be considered a passive feminist.
My first contention is that sexual objectification may not be as prevalent as is sometimes assumed. For example, the fact that women often receive wolf whistles and "beeps" from passersby etc. and the flaunting of women's bodies in adverts and the media is often considered to be evidence that they are being objectified. But is this really the case? When a man wolf whistles at a passing female, is he necessarily saying that she is nothing more than her sexual attraction or is he simply being obnoxious about his appreciation? When a woman in a music video is wearing skimpy clothing, is she really being used as nothing more than an instrument of sexual pleasure? Maybe, but not necessarily, and I think this is key: in fact a study (though maybe outdated) conducted on the centrefolds of Playboy magazine (no less) over the years concluded that "overall, objectification was low". In real life also, do we not need some way to distinguish between cases where a woman's sex appeal and aesthetic beauty is simply being appreciated and cases where a woman is being treated as nothing more than her sex appeal? When an individual claims that a woman is being viewed as a sexual object by a man, must that individual not be required to give some kind of evidence that this is really the case and that the man isn't simply appreciating part of the woman?
My second contention is that sexual objectification doesn't solely affect women. This, I think, is trivially true. It isn't really debatable that men sometimes also get verbal comments regarding sexuality, and men are also victims of being used for sex - which is the epitome of sexual objectification if there is one. If we conclude that the former constitutes sexual objectification for women, why does the same not apply for men? According to one study, one measure of objectification showed women were objectified more than men in mainstream pornography, but three showed no difference at all and three actually showed that men were objectified more. If male sexual objectification occurs, why is female sexual objectification the only problem that is ever really talked about? Or am I simply wrong and the objectification of males is also spoken out against regularly?
My third and final contention is that objectification in principle may not be a bad thing. This may seem like a horrendous thing to say, but in any case other than sexual objectification this seems almost trivially true. Do we criticise society and the West End for objectifying its actors as nothing more than, well, actors? Do we criticise supermarkets for allowing customers to view cashiers as nothing more than cashiers? Sure if we're in a good mood we might pause for small talk with a cashier, but many people treat cashiers as nothing more than an instrument for checking out - and this is widely regarded as acceptable in society. Similarly, in adverts targeted at women, for example, men are sometimes portrayed as rich or intelligent or funny. And yet we don't complain that they are being intellectually objectified or treated as nothing more than instruments to humour. Why is the case any different when it comes to sexual objectification specifically? Why is an adult actress (by which I mean porn star) being treated as a sex object a bad thing while a cashier being trated as a checking-out object a perfectly okay thing?
Anyway that's basically me out. Please just allow me to reiterate once again that I am very open-minded on this topic: the ideas still aren't fully formed in my head and I would be quite happy to be identified as an objectification agnostic. I really just want to bounce my thoughts off a range of different people and get some feedback! Please feel free to explain the flaws in my reasoning and why my ideas are stupid, but please be constructive. I like to think I am an honest and will respond as genuinely as I can!
My first contention is that sexual objectification may not be as prevalent as is sometimes assumed. For example, the fact that women often receive wolf whistles and "beeps" from passersby etc. and the flaunting of women's bodies in adverts and the media is often considered to be evidence that they are being objectified. But is this really the case? When a man wolf whistles at a passing female, is he necessarily saying that she is nothing more than her sexual attraction or is he simply being obnoxious about his appreciation? When a woman in a music video is wearing skimpy clothing, is she really being used as nothing more than an instrument of sexual pleasure? Maybe, but not necessarily, and I think this is key: in fact a study (though maybe outdated) conducted on the centrefolds of Playboy magazine (no less) over the years concluded that "overall, objectification was low". In real life also, do we not need some way to distinguish between cases where a woman's sex appeal and aesthetic beauty is simply being appreciated and cases where a woman is being treated as nothing more than her sex appeal? When an individual claims that a woman is being viewed as a sexual object by a man, must that individual not be required to give some kind of evidence that this is really the case and that the man isn't simply appreciating part of the woman?
My second contention is that sexual objectification doesn't solely affect women. This, I think, is trivially true. It isn't really debatable that men sometimes also get verbal comments regarding sexuality, and men are also victims of being used for sex - which is the epitome of sexual objectification if there is one. If we conclude that the former constitutes sexual objectification for women, why does the same not apply for men? According to one study, one measure of objectification showed women were objectified more than men in mainstream pornography, but three showed no difference at all and three actually showed that men were objectified more. If male sexual objectification occurs, why is female sexual objectification the only problem that is ever really talked about? Or am I simply wrong and the objectification of males is also spoken out against regularly?
My third and final contention is that objectification in principle may not be a bad thing. This may seem like a horrendous thing to say, but in any case other than sexual objectification this seems almost trivially true. Do we criticise society and the West End for objectifying its actors as nothing more than, well, actors? Do we criticise supermarkets for allowing customers to view cashiers as nothing more than cashiers? Sure if we're in a good mood we might pause for small talk with a cashier, but many people treat cashiers as nothing more than an instrument for checking out - and this is widely regarded as acceptable in society. Similarly, in adverts targeted at women, for example, men are sometimes portrayed as rich or intelligent or funny. And yet we don't complain that they are being intellectually objectified or treated as nothing more than instruments to humour. Why is the case any different when it comes to sexual objectification specifically? Why is an adult actress (by which I mean porn star) being treated as a sex object a bad thing while a cashier being trated as a checking-out object a perfectly okay thing?
Anyway that's basically me out. Please just allow me to reiterate once again that I am very open-minded on this topic: the ideas still aren't fully formed in my head and I would be quite happy to be identified as an objectification agnostic. I really just want to bounce my thoughts off a range of different people and get some feedback! Please feel free to explain the flaws in my reasoning and why my ideas are stupid, but please be constructive. I like to think I am an honest and will respond as genuinely as I can!
Scroll to see replies
Some women may want to be sex objects (like porn stars), but others who just want to do their day to day lives, don't. It can be uncomfortable to get wolf whistles etc. and sometimes attention can be intimidating.
Check out people are doing their job. They signed up to do that, they know the score. I work on check outs and I don't give a damn if I am treated as a check out object, the minute my shift ends and I'm out of my uniform that ceases to be. But women can't stop being women, and when they are walking to the shops they don't want cars tooting, they have become objects for something they can't control- because they're women.
Basically, actors chose to be actors. Checkout workers chose to be checkout workers. Women don't chose to be women do they, and why should they be harassed for being so?
Also women are still valued/judged on their looks/ their bodies. A good looking women is thought of and treated better than an ugly woman. If you are an ugly female life is very very hard, whereas for good looking women there are certain things that are ALOT easier.
Check out people are doing their job. They signed up to do that, they know the score. I work on check outs and I don't give a damn if I am treated as a check out object, the minute my shift ends and I'm out of my uniform that ceases to be. But women can't stop being women, and when they are walking to the shops they don't want cars tooting, they have become objects for something they can't control- because they're women.
Basically, actors chose to be actors. Checkout workers chose to be checkout workers. Women don't chose to be women do they, and why should they be harassed for being so?
Also women are still valued/judged on their looks/ their bodies. A good looking women is thought of and treated better than an ugly woman. If you are an ugly female life is very very hard, whereas for good looking women there are certain things that are ALOT easier.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by *Dreaming*
Some women may want to be sex objects (like porn stars), but others who just want to do their day to day lives, don't. It can be uncomfortable to get wolf whistles etc. and sometimes attention can be intimidating.
Check out people are doing their job. They signed up to do that, they know the score. I work on check outs and I don't give a damn if I am treated as a check out object, the minute my shift ends and I'm out of my uniform that ceases to be. But women can't stop being women, and when they are walking to the shops they don't want cars tooting, they have become objects for something they can't control- because they're women.
Basically, actors chose to be actors. Checkout workers chose to be checkout workers. Women don't chose to be women do they, and why should they be harassed for being so?
Check out people are doing their job. They signed up to do that, they know the score. I work on check outs and I don't give a damn if I am treated as a check out object, the minute my shift ends and I'm out of my uniform that ceases to be. But women can't stop being women, and when they are walking to the shops they don't want cars tooting, they have become objects for something they can't control- because they're women.
Basically, actors chose to be actors. Checkout workers chose to be checkout workers. Women don't chose to be women do they, and why should they be harassed for being so?
I assume when you still go out you'll wear make-up and nice clothes to make yourself look good? And yet you then complain...
Original post by *Dreaming*
Some women may want to be sex objects (like porn stars), but others who just want to do their day to day lives, don't. It can be uncomfortable to get wolf whistles etc. and sometimes attention can be intimidating.
Check out people are doing their job. They signed up to do that, they know the score. I work on check outs and I don't give a damn if I am treated as a check out object, the minute my shift ends and I'm out of my uniform that ceases to be. But women can't stop being women, and when they are walking to the shops they don't want cars tooting, they have become objects for something they can't control- because they're women.
Basically, actors chose to be actors. Checkout workers chose to be checkout workers. Women don't chose to be women do they, and why should they be harassed for being so?
Check out people are doing their job. They signed up to do that, they know the score. I work on check outs and I don't give a damn if I am treated as a check out object, the minute my shift ends and I'm out of my uniform that ceases to be. But women can't stop being women, and when they are walking to the shops they don't want cars tooting, they have become objects for something they can't control- because they're women.
Basically, actors chose to be actors. Checkout workers chose to be checkout workers. Women don't chose to be women do they, and why should they be harassed for being so?
I'm a male and I have recieved whistles, I've had my ass grabbed before.
It's not ok for men to objectify woman, but when a hunky man is on TV, woman can grab what they want and its ok, but if a guy grabsd a girl its seen as wrong and assault.
Original post by IntriguedUser
I'm a male and I have recieved whistles, I've had my ass grabbed before.
It's not ok for men to objectify woman, but when a hunky man is on TV, woman can grab what they want and its ok, but if a guy grabsd a girl its seen as wrong and assault.
It's not ok for men to objectify woman, but when a hunky man is on TV, woman can grab what they want and its ok, but if a guy grabsd a girl its seen as wrong and assault.
I'm not saying that I don't agree with you. But I guess the point is objectification of women is more prevalent, there are more lads mags, there is page 3 etc. And not much in the way of an equivalent.
Original post by CJG21
I assume when you still go out you'll wear make-up and nice clothes to make yourself look good? And yet you then complain...
Actually I've found that it happens more when I don't wear make up and make an effort with what I wear. You know for some men, just seeing a female who is under the age of 40 who is not fat is enough to warrant a tooting of their car horn?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by *Dreaming*
I'm not saying that I don't agree with you. But I guess the point is objectification of women is more prevalent, there are more lads mags, there is page 3 etc. And not much in the way of an equivalent.
But with the page 3, you can argue that those women knew what they signed up for. It's not like they were forced, they had a choice.
(edited 10 years ago)
[QUOTE="Ade9000;45793481"]
Yes true, but before feminism this was seen as sexist. Now it's their 'choice'. Men won in the end eh?
But that's not the point. Those women yes, they knew what they signed up for. But arguably their actions have a damaging effect on 'normal' women.
Original post by *Dreaming*
I'm not saying that I don't agree with you. But I guess the point is objectification of women is more prevalent, there are more lads mags, there is page 3 etc. And not much in the way of an equivalent.
But with the page 3, you can argue that those women knew what they signed up for. It's not like they were forced, they had a choice.
But with the page 3, you can argue that those women knew what they signed up for. It's not like they were forced, they had a choice.
Yes true, but before feminism this was seen as sexist. Now it's their 'choice'. Men won in the end eh?
But that's not the point. Those women yes, they knew what they signed up for. But arguably their actions have a damaging effect on 'normal' women.
Yes it is real, to this day women are still valued solely for their bodies, attractiveness or sexual potential by some people.
However feminism has began to rectify this imbalance.
Men have also suffered objectification though this is much less reported-some might argue that extreme feminists contribute to this objectification of men as backlash for the historical objectification of women. Nonetheless it has never been on the same scale as women due to the patriarchy.
Yet the real problem is that objectification in general is bad and reduces people to their bodies and/or looks, male or female. One can't reduce a person to the role they play on a daily basis-that means yes, objectifying an actor as 'just' an actor is also wrong
Next question?
However feminism has began to rectify this imbalance.
Men have also suffered objectification though this is much less reported-some might argue that extreme feminists contribute to this objectification of men as backlash for the historical objectification of women. Nonetheless it has never been on the same scale as women due to the patriarchy.
Yet the real problem is that objectification in general is bad and reduces people to their bodies and/or looks, male or female. One can't reduce a person to the role they play on a daily basis-that means yes, objectifying an actor as 'just' an actor is also wrong
Next question?
(edited 10 years ago)
I understand what you're saying, but there's really no need to be rude or disrespectful to people if they don't want to be treated that way. At the end of the day, defining anyone by race, gender, sexuality, religion, job or even the life choices they make is pretty disrespectful.
[QUOTE="*Dreaming*;45793518"]
How did men 'win'? Who's to say that if we banned Page 3, there wouldn't be an uproar from women?
Yes, I can see how it can desensitize people and cause the objectification, but would you do to fix this?
Original post by Ade9000
Yes true, but before feminism this was seen as sexist. Now it's their 'choice'. Men won in the end eh?
But that's not the point. Those women yes, they knew what they signed up for. But arguably their actions have a damaging effect on 'normal' women.
Yes true, but before feminism this was seen as sexist. Now it's their 'choice'. Men won in the end eh?
But that's not the point. Those women yes, they knew what they signed up for. But arguably their actions have a damaging effect on 'normal' women.
How did men 'win'? Who's to say that if we banned Page 3, there wouldn't be an uproar from women?
Yes, I can see how it can desensitize people and cause the objectification, but would you do to fix this?
There's nothing inherently wrong with sexual objectification, as it is something that is hard-wired into your brains for the future of humanity.
In addition, I'd like to say that I doubt this is as prevalent as people perceive it to be. There are people who think of men or women as purely sexual conquests, but most do look at other areas, such as personality, wealth and status.
Saying this, I believe it goes both ways. Objectification of men and women both exist, it seems to me that whilst female objectification is more common, it is generally viewed with disdain whilst male objectification exists but is viewed much more positively. I'm in support of removing this double standard. Either we should accept objectification of both sexes as positive or both as negative.
About these 'lads mags'. I think female magazines have far worse impacts on female insecurities (in some sense, this is why it sells), even though their pictures may be less immediately provocative.
In addition, I'd like to say that I doubt this is as prevalent as people perceive it to be. There are people who think of men or women as purely sexual conquests, but most do look at other areas, such as personality, wealth and status.
Saying this, I believe it goes both ways. Objectification of men and women both exist, it seems to me that whilst female objectification is more common, it is generally viewed with disdain whilst male objectification exists but is viewed much more positively. I'm in support of removing this double standard. Either we should accept objectification of both sexes as positive or both as negative.
About these 'lads mags'. I think female magazines have far worse impacts on female insecurities (in some sense, this is why it sells), even though their pictures may be less immediately provocative.
[QUOTE="Ade9000;45793597"]
Because now men are not labelled as sexist re. page 3. It is the woman's 'choice'. Women now think dressing provocatively is 'empowering' re. Miley Cyrus, lady gaga, Britney etc etc. Are you telling me that men do not enjoy and benefit from this so called 'female empowerment?'
Original post by *Dreaming*
How did men 'win'? Who's to say that if we banned Page 3, there wouldn't be an uproar from women?
Yes, I can see how it can desensitize people and cause the objectification, but would you do to fix this?
How did men 'win'? Who's to say that if we banned Page 3, there wouldn't be an uproar from women?
Yes, I can see how it can desensitize people and cause the objectification, but would you do to fix this?
Because now men are not labelled as sexist re. page 3. It is the woman's 'choice'. Women now think dressing provocatively is 'empowering' re. Miley Cyrus, lady gaga, Britney etc etc. Are you telling me that men do not enjoy and benefit from this so called 'female empowerment?'
I'm not a feminist and think most of their views are stupid.
But I watched some film called American Pie Beta house recently... My god there was a lot of woman objectification in there. I actually felt sorry for the actresses.
Overall, while there are cases like I mentioned, most complaints are about models upsetting teenage girls and making them puke up vital organs to be thin, which is stupid to be complaining about.
Posted from TSR Mobile
But I watched some film called American Pie Beta house recently... My god there was a lot of woman objectification in there. I actually felt sorry for the actresses.
Overall, while there are cases like I mentioned, most complaints are about models upsetting teenage girls and making them puke up vital organs to be thin, which is stupid to be complaining about.
Posted from TSR Mobile
As above, the objectification of women is much more prevalent, but more likely to be chastised and is gradually decreasing. The objectification of men is less prevalent but generally more accepted, probably because it is rarer and is, rightly, viewed as empowering (eg. Loose Women).
Ultimately given that people will always find each other attractive for purely physical traits, I suspect as it becomes more socially acceptable for women to openly state that they want to just rip the pants off X and get on with mounting him objectification of strangers will become the norm for both genders but decline amongst men with regard to those people they know.
Ultimately given that people will always find each other attractive for purely physical traits, I suspect as it becomes more socially acceptable for women to openly state that they want to just rip the pants off X and get on with mounting him objectification of strangers will become the norm for both genders but decline amongst men with regard to those people they know.
The word objectification annoys me. I get what they're trying to do, but it's just not right. Pretty much everything that gets called objectification has an obvious human element to it e.g. wolf whistling, you wouldn't do that to an object, you're trying to elicit a reaction. It's just the semantics of the subject that annoys me, but I study linguistics so it's to be expected 
As for the actual matter at hand, I don't think objectification is an issue when its in your head. It's when people are vocal about it that it's a problem. When it's not wanted anyway, some people like it. I'm aware that the first thing I notice about a woman is her looks. I mean I probably do the same with guys, but it just doesn't matter to me how they look really. It's just my first thought, and some people choose to vocalise those thoughts.
As for the actual matter at hand, I don't think objectification is an issue when its in your head. It's when people are vocal about it that it's a problem. When it's not wanted anyway, some people like it. I'm aware that the first thing I notice about a woman is her looks. I mean I probably do the same with guys, but it just doesn't matter to me how they look really. It's just my first thought, and some people choose to vocalise those thoughts.
(edited 10 years ago)
[QUOTE="*Dreaming*;45793643"]
All those women do it to make the public think they are slightly unhinged so people are interested in their lives and buy their records, most men do not find twerking attractive.
Original post by Ade9000
Because now men are not labelled as sexist re. page 3. It is the woman's 'choice'. Women now think dressing provocatively is 'empowering' re. Miley Cyrus, lady gaga, Britney etc etc. Are you telling me that men do not enjoy and benefit from this so called 'female empowerment?'
Because now men are not labelled as sexist re. page 3. It is the woman's 'choice'. Women now think dressing provocatively is 'empowering' re. Miley Cyrus, lady gaga, Britney etc etc. Are you telling me that men do not enjoy and benefit from this so called 'female empowerment?'
All those women do it to make the public think they are slightly unhinged so people are interested in their lives and buy their records, most men do not find twerking attractive.
Original post by xDave-
The word objectification annoys me. I get what they're trying to do, but it's just not right. Pretty much everything that gets called objectification has an obvious human element to it e.g. wolf whistling, you wouldn't do that to an object, you're trying to elicit a reaction. It's just the semantics of the subject that annoys me, but I study linguistics so it's to be expected
That's what I've always thought. Sexuality is inherently a human quality. So how is it treating someone like an object to appreciate their sexuality?
I get that it's a bad thing to only care about a person's sexual aspects and disregard the rest of their qualities. I just don't see how it's treating them as if they were an object.
Anyway, I think the real problem is people being unable to act appropriately in a given context. I don't think the existence of page 3, lads mags, strip clubs, etc. are an inherent part of the problem. The women that feature in those have made their own choices to do it, and in doing so have accepted that they will be mainly judged on their sexual appeal in that context. The problem is when people generalise that to all women, who haven't made that choice. It might be ok to wolf whistle at a pole dancer, but I don't see why some people find it so hard to grasp that it is inappropriate when walking down the street.
Original post by Ade9000
Because now men are not labelled as sexist re. page 3. It is the woman's 'choice'. Women now think dressing provocatively is 'empowering' re. Miley Cyrus, lady gaga, Britney etc etc. Are you telling me that men do not enjoy and benefit from this so called 'female empowerment?'
Because now men are not labelled as sexist re. page 3. It is the woman's 'choice'. Women now think dressing provocatively is 'empowering' re. Miley Cyrus, lady gaga, Britney etc etc. Are you telling me that men do not enjoy and benefit from this so called 'female empowerment?'
Do Miley & Co really think it's 'empowering'? Or do their managements, PRs, advisers and scheming financial brains simply inform them that extreme provocation sells?
Really, the 'empowerment' thing is such a bald lie.
Original post by Psyk
That's what I've always thought. Sexuality is inherently a human quality. So how is it treating someone like an object to appreciate their sexuality?
I get that it's a bad thing to only care about a person's sexual aspects and disregard the rest of their qualities. I just don't see how it's treating them as if they were an object.
Anyway, I think the real problem is people being unable to act appropriately in a given context. I don't think the existence of page 3, lads mags, strip clubs, etc. are an inherent part of the problem. The women that feature in those have made their own choices to do it, and in doing so have accepted that they will be mainly judged on their sexual appeal in that context. The problem is when people generalise that to all women, who haven't made that choice. It might be ok to wolf whistle at a pole dancer, but I don't see why some people find it so hard to grasp that it is inappropriate when walking down the street.
I get that it's a bad thing to only care about a person's sexual aspects and disregard the rest of their qualities. I just don't see how it's treating them as if they were an object.
Anyway, I think the real problem is people being unable to act appropriately in a given context. I don't think the existence of page 3, lads mags, strip clubs, etc. are an inherent part of the problem. The women that feature in those have made their own choices to do it, and in doing so have accepted that they will be mainly judged on their sexual appeal in that context. The problem is when people generalise that to all women, who haven't made that choice. It might be ok to wolf whistle at a pole dancer, but I don't see why some people find it so hard to grasp that it is inappropriate when walking down the street.
Lots of women who appeared in clubs or magazines have later stated that they deeply regretted it. There is huge commercial pressure to do these things and when you combine that with the difficulty many women have in accessing well paid work, the result is inevitable. That doesn't make it a free 'choice' in the phoney, Tory way these things get talked about.
Looking at complete strangers for the purposes of gratification is nothing like the tender, human appreciation of sexuality that exists in intimate relationships.
Original post by *Dreaming*
Because now men are not labelled as sexist re. page 3. It is the woman's 'choice'. Women now think dressing provocatively is 'empowering' re. Miley Cyrus, lady gaga, Britney etc etc. Are you telling me that men do not enjoy and benefit from this so called 'female empowerment?'
Because now men are not labelled as sexist re. page 3. It is the woman's 'choice'. Women now think dressing provocatively is 'empowering' re. Miley Cyrus, lady gaga, Britney etc etc. Are you telling me that men do not enjoy and benefit from this so called 'female empowerment?'
How is viewing semi-naked women sexist? So when women dress provocatively and a man finds it attractive, he's sexist? How does that work? Would you label a women sexist for looking at nude male model photos?
As for the provocative clothing, yes, men do gain some benefit from it. But once again, what are you going to do? Because now you're going along the lines of 'dress modestly' and I'm pretty sure some women will take offence to that. It's more about being able to wear what you want or do you think that all women dress the way they do because 'men said they should' for our benefit?
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 7 minutes ago
My boyfriend left me because he said my breasts and butt were too smallLast reply 52 minutes ago
Official University of Strathclyde Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official Newcastle University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?