Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The way feminists use "sexual objectification" is usually as hyperbole watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILovePancakes)
    A man masturbated on the tube next to me once. For example.

    But a better, more definitive term for that incident would be "sexual harrassment". Forget the concept of "objectification".

    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    Oh but it is, because as I said, harrassment is a result of objectification. Besides, when you see someone as potential f*** material, the way you treat them changes.
    Don't get me wrong, everybody objectifies people in one way or another, it's part of human nature to do so to a certain extent, but sometimes this is done in a way that is toxic and is harmful to the person on the receiving end. I know it can't be stopped fully, but something can be done to lessen the extent to which it happens, especially to women. (Men are also objectified and this is very harmful to them too, but not quite as much as women)
    What do you mean by "objectification" here? I think men harass women due to Freudian problems with their mother, or because they have some kind of sadistic desire for power. I don't think this comes from looking at Playboy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    But a better, more definitive term for that incident would be "sexual harrassment". Forget the concept of "objectification".



    What do you mean by "objectification" here? I think men harass women due to Freudian problems with their mother, or because they have some kind of sadistic desire for power. I don't think this comes from looking at Playboy.
    My definition of sexual objectification was a man wanting a woman purely for sex. I think this applies here. I certainly felt objectified when the ****ing pervert was rubbing my hip.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    What do you mean by "objectification" here? I think men harass women due to Freudian problems with their mother, or because they have some kind of sadistic desire for power. I don't think this comes from looking at Playboy.
    Objectification as in "I want to have sex with this person, the only thing I want them for is sex, as they're nice to look at but I don't give a s*** about anything else about them" etc.
    Ah but it does link to looking at porn. Porn gives people a skewed perception of the real world - it tends to cause them to come to the conclusion that all women (and men - porn also often objectifies men) are sexually available at any time, and they'll constantly compare them to the pornstars and models they see, and if they don't look like that false image then they're not interested, and they'll pursue people who have assets associated with pornstars (a built body for men, for example, or big boobs for women) solely for the purpose of having sex with them - objectification. Don't even get me started on how porn skews people's ideas of sex.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILovePancakes)
    My definition of sexual objectification was a man wanting a woman purely for sex. I think this applies here. I certainly felt objectified when the ****ing pervert was rubbing my hip.
    But for a person to only want to have sex with someone is not an inherently bad thing. A man jerking off over a picture of a girl modelling erotically is not doing anyone any harm. It's all consensual. The problem with your experience was that he was harrassing you and showing no respect for you, as it was all without your consent. So to call those two things "sexual objectification", and to then go on to say that all sexual objectification is bad, seems very disingenuous.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    But for a person to only want to have sex with someone is not an inherently bad thing. A man jerking off over a picture of a girl modelling erotically is not doing anyone any harm. It's all consensual. The problem with your experience was that he was harrassing you and showing no respect for you, as it was all without your consent. So to call those two things "sexual objectification", and to then go on to say that all sexual objectification is bad, seems very disingenuous.
    I didn't say all sexual objectification was bad. Indeed, I said quite the opposite; that I have even objectified myself. However, I did indicate that some of my own experiences of sexual objectification have been destructive as they have resulted in me becoming suspicious of men.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    Objectification as in "I want to have sex with this person, the only thing I want them for is sex, as they're nice to look at but I don't give a s*** about anything else about them" etc.
    Ah but it does link to looking at porn. Porn gives people a skewed perception of the real world - it tends to cause them to come to the conclusion that all women (and men - porn also often objectifies men) are sexually available at any time, and they'll constantly compare them to the pornstars and models they see, and if they don't look like that false image then they're not interested, and they'll pursue people who have assets associated with pornstars (a built body for men, for example, or big boobs for women) solely for the purpose of having sex with them - objectification. Don't even get me started on how porn skews people's ideas of sex.
    Do you have any evidence to prove that porn drives men to harass women? Also, won't men look for porn stars that are of the type of women which they already find attractive? It's not like they start watching porn, and that makes them find certain women attractive, and then they want women who look like them. It's that they look for porn with the kinds of women they find attractive in. Otherwise you wouldn't have porn with all different kinds of body types. Nothing happens in porn that men wouldn't fantasize about anyway.

    Also, the idea that porn causes people to think that everyone is sexually available is obviously ridiculous. It's like saying that James Bond films cause people to think that everyone is an undercover agent. People are fairly used to taking in media which they know doesn't relate to real life.


    I already refuted most of the rest of your argument in my OP:
    The other way people think of "sexual objectification" is that it relates to the word "objective", as in someone is being viewed as a sexual objective. A man masturbating over the thought of a women is only thinking about the objective of having sex with her. This is not inane, but I hardly see why -if this is what the term describes- it needs to exist. Focusing on one aspect of a person is not particularly problematic or extraordinary. We do this all the time. With a waiter in a restaurant we see them and only wish they'd bring us food on time. With the postman we only wish he'd deliver our letters. It's not a problem; although we do this, unless we're psychopathic, we're still able to comprehend that the waitress is not simply a food carrying automaton, just as much as the Playboy model is not just a sex machine. It's not problematic, it's perfectly natural. We can't be expected to try to consider the entire persona of anyone and everyone we benefit from.

    Some might argue that the problem is that women are objectified more, so that leads men to think of all women as being nothing more than something for them to have sex with. If the only women a man ever saw were in images in Playboy, then this would make sense. But women make up half the population and we all have mothers, daughters, nieces, sisters and wives. As it stands, saying that sexualized images of women makes men think of them as sex objects is equivalent to saying that when you watch football you are only able to think of the players as football playing machines, and are unable to comprehend that they are actually human beings with their own lives. But not only that, it's also like saying that because their is vastly more public interest in watching men playing football than women, that means that any women who watches football must think that all men are football playing machines.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILovePancakes)
    I didn't say all sexual objectification was bad. Indeed, I said quite the opposite; that I have even objectified myself. However, I did indicate that some of my own experiences of sexual objectification have been destructive as they have resulted in me becoming suspicious of men.
    That's fair enough but would it not be better to use the term more definitively? I think to say what you experienced was "sexual objectification" is very appropriate, but to give Playboy the same name is hyperbole.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Do you have any evidence to prove that porn drives men to harass women? Also, won't men look for porn stars that are of the type of women which they already find attractive? It's not like they start watching porn, and that makes them find certain women attractive, and then they want women who look like them. It's that they look for porn with the kinds of women they find attractive in. Otherwise you wouldn't have porn with all different kinds of body types. Nothing happens in porn that men wouldn't fantasize about anyway.


    I already refuted most of the rest of your argument in my OP:
    The other way people think of "sexual objectification" is that it relates to the word "objective", as in someone is being viewed as a sexual objective. A man masturbating over the thought of a women is only thinking about the objective of having sex with her. This is not inane, but I hardly see why -if this is what the term describes- it needs to exist. Focusing on one aspect of a person is not particularly problematic or extraordinary. We do this all the time. With a waiter in a restaurant we see them and only wish they'd bring us food on time. With the postman we only wish he'd deliver our letters. It's not a problem; although we do this, unless we're psychopathic, we're still able to comprehend that the waitress is not simply a food carrying automaton, just as much as the Playboy model is not just a sex machine. It's not problematic, it's perfectly natural. We can't be expected to try to consider the entire persona of anyone and everyone we benefit from.

    Some might argue that the problem is that women are objectified more, so that leads men to think of all women as being nothing more than something for them to have sex with. If the only women a man ever saw were in images in Playboy, then this would make sense. But women make up half the population and we all have mothers, daughters, nieces, sisters and wives. As it stands, saying that sexualized images of women makes men think of them as sex objects is equivalent to saying that when you watch football you are only able to think of the players as football playing machines, and are unable to comprehend that they are actually human beings with their own lives. But not only that, it's also like saying that because their is vastly more public interest in watching men playing football than women, that means that any women who watches football must think that all men are football playing machines.
    Nice try, but I didn't say porn causes men to harrass women. And not necessarily, as yes, there are many body types available in porn, but they live in the shadow of the image of the stereotypical busty blonde with long legs, tanned skin and a tiny waist. Also if you add the fact most people start watching porn at a stage in their lives where they're very impressionable, they begin to build up an idea in their heads that this is the kind of woman they should be pursuing if they want an exciting life full of wild sex. And that's true, but fantasising about it and actually seeing it happen on a video are different things - it makes them feel like it's normal to then go out and do the things they're fantasising about to real women, especially with the rise of a new porn category where it's staged to make it seem like the women are not actresses.
    Also to respond to what you said before, specifically the football metaphor, it's flawed in my opinion because a lot of the time the people you see on TV are not people that you imagine as being normal human beings, and footballers are not viewed as regular people, but, well, footballers. Most people don't take into consideration what the footballer does in their spare time, what food they like, whether they're introverted or extroverted etc etc etc. They just see them as, for lack of a better phrase, "football playing machines."
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    I would read the argument if it was shorter. I'm not going to waste my time on something I know is going to be bull - I got everything I needed to know from the first paragraph.
    I talk about things I've encountered from myself and other girls I've met because I can't exactly talk for someone in a completely different situation than me, and I never said I had it worse than them. The context for OP's argument is the Western world (the bit that I read anyway) so I'm going to respond in a way that links back to that, buddy. And actually not once, it happens on a regular basis and you can't tell me it's just "someone finding me attractive" because you have no idea what it's like to have to walk home with your keys in your hand posed as a weapon in case you need to protect yourself. From, let me repeat, the age of 12.
    It's not dirty or disrespectful because I wasn't relating my problems to 3rd world problems, don't put words in my mouth and jump to conclusions from something that isn't even in my reply. The fact that people have it 100% worse than me is something I am well aware of, however it doesn't mean that women in the 1st world have it easy. If you want to talk about 3rd world problems I can do that too.

    EDIT: also I love how you overlooked the part about getting sexually assaulted, which is something that happens to approximately 1 in 4 women in the western world, because even you know that's fu**** up.
    You literally sound like a cult member, why are you soafraid to question your beliefs or more aptly why are you so afraid to arguefor your beliefs even Christians will debate atheist, do you really have thatlittle faith in feminism.Yes but you used their pain to help your argument while knowingfully well that their situation has no link to yours, when you do **** likethis it takes from the gravity of their situation and hurts them because theyhave it ALLOT WORSE.Then where are these millions of girls being raped comingfrom because it’s not happening in any western country (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqELvTMxZiQ).I ignored it because it wasn’t an argument, your personalexperiences however terrible have no place in a discussion about society exceptwhen they are used to personalize a statistic. Well how do I know it happens ona regular basis, feminist are known liars and exaggerators, I know it’s coldbut blame the feminist who compare gang rape to a whistling. Yes I do I use to live in quite a bad neighbourhood, women aren’tspecial in fearing from harm at night, in fact men should be more afraid as I amso much more likely to be murdered then you are to be raped. So if you weren’t relating your problems to the 3rdworld why did you mention them, they aren’t related to your argument, it’s reallyobvious that you were just using them to gain sympathy.The 1 in 4 myth is a lie unless you consider drunk consensualsex that was regretted the morning after as rape (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqELvTMxZiQ)E
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    That's fair enough but would it not be better to use the term more definitively? I think to say what you experienced was "sexual objectification" is very appropriate, but to give Playboy the same name is hyperbole.
    I think it is still sexual objectification, even if not necessarily negatively so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    Nice try, but I didn't say porn causes men to harrass women.
    So what's the problem with it then?

    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    And not necessarily, as yes, there are many body types available in porn, but they live in the shadow of the image of the stereotypical busty blonde with long legs, tanned skin and a tiny waist.
    I watch porn a lot, and I have to say I rarely actually see this stereotypical porn body type. Maybe you should start actually looking into it before you make judgements. Porn has a lot of body types; far, far, far more than fashion modelling. There is a lot of feminist porn out there now as well.

    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    Also if you add the fact most people start watching porn at a stage in their lives where they're very impressionable, they begin to build up an idea in their heads that this is the kind of woman they should be pursuing if they want an exciting life full of wild sex.
    First of all, do you have any evidence this is true? Because I'm fairly sure most young girls don't look up to porn stars. I think that's fairly ridiculous conjecture you've pulled out of your arse. Secondly, what exactly are wrong with these "kinds of women"? This sounds like sly slut-shaming. Something which I am actually very against, I might add.

    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    And that's true, but fantasising about it and actually seeing it happen on a video are different things - it makes them feel like it's normal to then go out and do the things they're fantasising about to real women, especially with the rise of a new porn category where it's staged to make it seem like the women are not actresses.
    What's wrong with enacting what they see in porn in sex in real life? My girlfriend and I watch porn and we have used stuff we have seen to spice up our sex life.

    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    Also to respond to what you said before, specifically the football metaphor, it's flawed in my opinion because a lot of the time the people you see on TV are not people that you imagine as being normal human beings, and footballers are not viewed as regular people, but, well, footballers. Most people don't take into consideration what the footballer does in their spare time, what food they like, whether they're introverted or extroverted etc etc etc. They just see them as, for lack of a better phrase, "football playing machines."
    Ok, so why aren't you protesting against football then?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pizzad0gs)
    Nice try, but I didn't say porn causes men to harrass women. And not necessarily, as yes, there are many body types available in porn, but they live in the shadow of the image of the stereotypical busty blonde with long legs, tanned skin and a tiny waist. Also if you add the fact most people start watching porn at a stage in their lives where they're very impressionable, they begin to build up an idea in their heads that this is the kind of woman they should be pursuing if they want an exciting life full of wild sex. And that's true, but fantasising about it and actually seeing it happen on a video are different things - it makes them feel like it's normal to then go out and do the things they're fantasising about to real women, especially with the rise of a new porn category where it's staged to make it seem like the women are not actresses.
    First do you have any proof forthat claim uno other than stereotypical assumptions? And actually the stereotypicalpornstar is a brunette with large breast and/or ass. I don’t know how femalesexuality works but male sexuality is allot more driven, you are not just ablank slate that when you see your first naked woman you will instantlyimprint on her body type. Men figure out what they like through browsing and stick to it. In addition porn websites are specially designed so that people do not have to view what they don’tlike, this means that even if you have slight inclination towards a certain fetish all unrelated fetishes will be removed fro your viewing experience regardless of their popularity. Even if websites weren't designed that waypeople can’t just change what they find attractive through conditioning, otherwiseprograms like pray the gay away would work with flying colours.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like pizzadogs has put her fingers in her ears.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sexual objectification is what girls who don't get attention call pretty girls getting attention. Pure jealousy.

    I myself HATE how women all love George Clooney. They don't appreciate his great career, his talent, just his looks. (Said no man ever).

    Sexual objectification is a stupid term.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    Too long to read but I have already read Martha's objectification check-list on one of my Wikipedia trawls and so I don't disagree with your premise.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 13, 2015
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.