Can we finally end the objectification nonsense? Can't we think critically?

Jambi1913 · 2024-04-16T03:37:54+00:00

You’re comparing approaching women for sex to going to a mechanic for an oil change for your car? Do you see how that is not the same thing - at all? If you were comparing it to going to a sex worker you’d be closer to the mark…

Objectification is not simply wanting to have casual sex with women and finding the female body sexually desirable. It’s reducing women’s value to her looks and sexual utility alone. It’s disregarding her opinions, personality and desires and overwriting them with your own. It’s the all-too-common refrain in this part of the internet that “the only thing women bring to the table is sex and their looks”. It’s the way some men view women as property and ignore her right to bodily autonomy.

Men can be sexually objectified too - or reduced to their financial utility - and men also don’t like it. No one likes to be genuinely reduced to fulfilling a purpose for someone else who seems to not care how you feel about it. No one likes to be used and discarded.

MiddleZealousideal89 · 2024-04-16T05:25:35+00:00

People aren't objects.

thetacobitch · 2024-04-16T04:33:19+00:00

I stopped reading after the first paragraph bc you’re just changing the meaning of the word objectification to be more convenient for you.

KayRay1994 · 2024-04-16T05:31:23+00:00

You’ve either missed the fundamental argument entirely or are arguing in bad faith, but fine, for the sake of others potentially reading this who might not know much better, I’ll bite.

The issue with objectification isn’t with viewing someone as attractive or being the object of one’s desire (assuming the feeling is mutual, i want to make that very very clear), but rather, reducing to a person to being an object, removing all dimension and humanity from them. In the case of objectifying women, for example, it’s about viewing them as a piece of meat for your own pleasure or existence - it is not about viewing them sexually, being attracted to women or approaching a woman because she looks hot. Women generally like being seen as attractive and they like being viewed as the object of one’s affection, however, being viewed as attractive and/or the object of your lover’s affection is not the same as full on objectification - it’s not a hard distinction to make.

You taking a philosophical concept out of context to justify this does not justify treating another human as lesser than human. Nice try though.

Schmurby · 2024-04-16T03:57:47+00:00

Historically, women took value in two ways: through their sexual purity (virgins, marriage material) or their promiscuity (whores, saddle up and ride). Hence they were objects, not beings with value and agency apart from their sexuality.

While a man could be handsome, his value more often came from the profession he chose: doctor, mechanic, Supreme Court justice, soldier, construction worker, etc. A man’s value was not specifically measured in his attractiveness and sexual experiences.

This is changing now. Really looking only in the past few decades. Does that bother you?

howdoiw0rkthisthing · 2024-04-16T03:43:54+00:00

It’s not about extracting something you want from someone else. It’s a specific term developed in the 90s to describe something systemic. From the Wikipedia article:

because of sexual objectification, women learn to internalize an outsider's view of their bodies as the primary view of themselves. Women, they explain, begin to view their bodies as objects separate from their person

This self-objectification then, according to objectification theory, leads to increased habitual body monitoring. With this framework in mind, Fredrickson and Roberts suggest explanations for consequences they believe are the result of sexual objectification.

increased feelings of shame, increased feelings of anxiety, decreased peak motivational state, and decreased awareness of internal bodily states.

TRTGymBro1 · 2024-04-16T10:11:42+00:00

And then you guys wonder why women don't want to fuck you. I finally solved the PPD mystery. Where is my Nobel Prize?

EulenWatcher · 2024-04-16T02:57:25+00:00

Sexual objectification doesn't mean that you see a person just as an object, but that you see a person only as a means to fulfil your sexual desire. Their own desires, personality, preferences, pleasure and everything else don't matter - they're just a sexually gratifying object to you and that's all.

sublimemongrel · 2024-04-16T03:04:14+00:00

Nobody is talking about all this philosophical shit when they complain about objectification. Tell us the same thing when men complain about only being useful as a wallet, or experience something of that sort yourself and tell me it’s just “natural” and therefore the complaints are just “nonsense”

Even your comparison seeking a women for sex versus seeking an AUTO MECHANIC for AUTO MECHANIC SERVICES is a point against you - surely you can see that??

Quiet_Firefighter_65 · 2024-04-16T04:59:10+00:00

To start with, no, we are not objects. The entire reason the object - subject distinction exists to recognise human agency, experience and intellect. Elements of us may be considered objects, say our fingers and toes, but we ourselves are not.

As for objectification, the idea isn't that you measure someone's suitability for a particular task per their competence for it, but rather that you appraise their overall value as a person per that criteria. Say, you measure the value of the person who is a mechanic by their competence as a mechanic, and do not recognise that said person has experience, agency and intellect external to their ability to fix your car.

It's funny you use mechanics as an example because, in my opinion, the most blatant form of objectification is economic, not sexual. We objectify the lower classes to their economic productivity, which is why people are extremely hostile to the homeless, the unemployed or otherwise economically non productive.

To return to sexual objectification of women, it isn't to seek particular characteristics in a woman you intend to have sex with, but to value women at large only in their ability to provide you with sexual pleasure, thus disregarding the subjective nature of women as people.

Of course, the irony is that (lay) feminists also often objectify women without realising it. Say, a man says that he wouldn't be with someone who doesn't meet particular standards, and women accuse the man of being a misogynist. What's implicit here is that those womens overall value is measured by their suitibality to be that man's partner, as opposed to the value they have external to it.

TermAggravating8043 · 2024-04-16T06:39:04+00:00

It’s post like these that remind me why theirs a rise in the loneliness of young men

Safinated · 2024-04-16T03:30:10+00:00

I can see that the concepts of mutuality, reciprocity, autonomy, respect, rights and consent, at least for women, still anger and confuse you

Just like they did in your past posts

PMmeareasontolive · 2024-04-16T04:32:44+00:00

We are objects, but we are objects with subjectivity. The objection to objectification is when it does not properly regard the other's subjectivity (their wants, purpose, feels, etc). It's using the other as a means to an end without proper regard for their own agenda. It's a misalignment of purposes.

I agree with you that objectification is part of sex, sometimes in unconscious ways, sometimes in deliberate ways. That can be fine as long as both people are on the same page about it.

MidoriEgg · 2024-04-16T07:09:25+00:00

You can approach someone just for sex, you can go to a mechanic just for an oil change. You might not care about much else about the person besides what you’re getting from them; But if you’re a half-decent person, you don’t completely forget that they’re also a human too. If I dropped off my car and the mechanic said he couldn’t work on it today because he’s just got a call his wife is in the hospital or something, I wouldn’t then demand he works on my car because the service he can provide to me is all that matters. If he suddenly had a seizure, my first thought would be getting him help, not ‘oh no, my oil change’.

Similarly, you can approach a woman just for sex, but I don’t think you’re objectifying her unless you are willing to put her in an unsafe situation physically or emotionally and use blatantly immoral behaviour (ie, implications) in order to get it, or if you treat her badly immediately after getting what you want. Basically, treating her as an object you can do anything to as long as you ultimately get what you want.

We all use other humans for things, but most people can do so without forgetting the humanity of those providing the service.

OkStory2525 · 2024-04-16T10:38:11+00:00

I hope you are used as a sex service

AutoModerator · 2024-04-16T02:53:21+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2024-04-16T02:53:21+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Icy_Sunlite · 2024-04-16T10:50:00+00:00

While we are living things, sentient things, we are objects. Living objects. We can't objectify something that already is an object. That's like solidifying a solid, freezing something already frozen, melting something already melted. Our state is that of an object. Why are we an object? Because we're a thing.

This is basically a misrepresentation. Humans aren't objects in the sense meant by "Objectification".

We're a sexually reproducing living thing. We have a biological imperative crucial to our very existence and sense of well being to sexually reproduce or at least emulate it. We do so with the living objects we're attracted to.

It's important for most people to sexually reproduce, but the only moral and ultimately fulfilling way to do that is to find someone who will be a good mother/father to your child and marry them, not engaging in highly risky (I say risky because no birth control is foolproof) team masturbations.

So therefore, sexual objectification is the natural state and yes, according to Laotzu, a wiser sage than all of us, that's our highest state. Natural is better, even better than moral.

"When the Dao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality, When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos." - Lao Tzu (Dao De Jing Ch. 38)

The Dao is essentially nature.

Okay (good) philosophy aside, a great philosophy that helped form many a great civilization, let's just use reason and debunk horrible, manipulative, demonizing feminist philosophy.

The subject-object dichotomy suggests that a man (into women) gazes at women as a sex pest basically and doesn't want to know her intimately so therefore he baaaad. Bad, evil male.

But really, if you want something from someone and just interact with them for that in literally any other context it's fine. Make it make sense.

I want to get my oil changed so I auto mechanically objectify the oil change shop mechanic. Okay that makes sense right? Totally makes you evil right? Nobody says that.

If I go to a person taking a college course with me and only want to interact with them to study with them, I'm academically objectifying them and am therefore evil?

McMindfulness aside, sex isn't remotely comparable to changing oil or any other "service" you could compare it to. Sex is how we make new human beings, and everyone knows deep down it's significantly more important, which is why we care about putting moral norms around it, and why the sexual revolutionaries are never entirely successful for long.

See, westerners in general have such hangups about sex and protecting women from unwanted sexual encounters no matter how harmless they might be... you'd be hard pressed to meet someone in an English speaking nation that didn't think it was a horrible sin for a man to look at sexually and approach a woman entirely for sex.

The West remains a very sexually open culture, though. A good number of one-Western nations have far more traditional sexual norms, where women are valued for being at least somewhat chaste. It should actually be considered very rude for a man to approach a woman entirely for sex, and every semi-decent culture has had norms for how men talk to/approach women of some social value (Which, thanks to a tiny bit of remaining Christian influence, means every woman in the West).

The problem is our culture isn't willing to go back to a system where men are consistently expected to properly court a woman for relationship/marriage before jumping into bed with her.

Haunting-Run-5346 · 2024-04-16T10:51:07+00:00

i guess the lower dimensional objects can really only see anything else, well as an object

Post-Posadism · 2024-04-16T12:24:25+00:00

We're a sexually reproducing living thing. We have a biological imperative crucial to our very existence and sense of well being to sexually reproduce or at least emulate it. We do so with the living objects we're attracted to.

i.e. We're subjects, and it's worth remembering that the person we're engaging in such activities with is also a subject themselves too. Objectification is not simply "being an object in any procedure" but rather reducing someone to an object, in other words forgetting or denying their subjectivity.

Other people have free will, they have desires of their own, they have personalities and identities and so forth, all which ought to be not only acknowledged but also celebrated. It is a beautiful thing for your partner to be a subject, for them to want you just as you want them, no?

The issue with dehumanising, depersonalising or de-subjectifying your partner (what we mean when we say "objectification"), is that it undercuts things like consent or sincerity. If you don't respect your partner as a person - i.e. if you don't view them as more than an object upon which to project your own fantasies or desires - then you are more likely to violate or disrupt their own efforts and will that you yourself exhibit.

So therefore, sexual objectification is the natural state and yes, according to Laotzu, a wiser sage than all of us, that's our highest state. Natural is better, even better than moral.

Unfortunately this is little more than an appeal to authority to justify a naturalistic fallacy. If you would like to discuss Taoist philosophy, we can do that, but you can't just drop a name and your perception of his conclusions, and then expect that confirms what you would like it to.

The subject-object dichotomy suggests that a man (into women) gazes at women as a sex pest basically and doesn't want to know her intimately so therefore he baaaad. Bad, evil male.

Sexual desire is not inherently wrong, unless you treat your partner like an NPC as opposed to like another player. When you approach someone, respect the fact they are a person like you with their own complex thoughts and desires. If they overlap with yours, then great, you can collaborate on achieving a mutually desired outcome.

If I go to a person taking a college course with me and only want to interact with them to study with them, I'm academically objectifying them and am therefore evil?

Do you want to study with them, or do you want to use them to copy their homework? The latter is a form of objectification and arguably exploitation, if you're deriving personal reward off of someone else's work.

See, westerners in general have such hangups about sex and protecting women from unwanted sexual encounters no matter how harmless they might be...

This is partly true, but that's the fault of patriarchal norms not feminism. Patriarchy treats women as objects for fathers or husbands to protect and maintain their purity, not as subjects of their own. If this is your gripe then surely sexual liberation would be right up your alley.

Commercial_Tea_8185 · 2024-04-16T17:17:54+00:00

Youre so deluded its hard to even comprehend fully. Wtf are you talking about? Going to a get you oil changed where you walk into an establishment which is advertising ‘GET YOUR OIL CHANGED’ is much different than approaching some random woman and objectifying her.

There is such a thing as objectification, it just sounds like youre a pervert and you dont want the social stigma that comes with being a pervert, so you’ve enmeshed yourself in a quasi pseudophilosophical cognitive dissonance in order to alleviate the inner shame you feel for being a pervert

80espiay · 2024-04-18T23:33:22+00:00

you'd be hard pressed to meet someone in an English speaking nation that didn't think it was a horrible sin for a man to look at sexually and approach a woman entirely for sex.

Citation needed tbh. Nobody frowns upon casual hookups.

The problem is how you treat the person. There is a difference between “not really interacting with the car mechanic who changes your oil”, and “actively treating them like a vending machine that gives you engine oil in return for money”. The former isn’t objectification, it’s just the lack of interaction. While the latter specifically involves you actively reducing a person to the service they provide, and is incredibly rude.

Dankutoo · 2024-04-16T05:04:11+00:00

“Objectification” discourse is fundamentally about women not understanding (and ultimately hating) men. Men see a hot woman and want to have sex with her. It’s that simple. No matter how many times we try to explain this to women they refuse to listen. It’s so straightforward (like MOST male things) they can’t believe that we actually think like that….

izoldetales · 2024-04-16T15:17:48+00:00

OP is right in my opinion, sex has nothing to do with objectification cause it includes both men and women but the world is so flashy that it's always used to guilt trip who can get sex and nothing beyond !!

SoldierExcelsior · 2024-04-17T02:40:08+00:00

I agree with OP...If I don't know a woman she only has one purpose initially and that's a sexual one if she's attractive..if they feel objectified to bad...show some other use then.Sex is the only thing I need a woman for..I don't look at random women and think I bet she's a great lawyer,no I think I wonder how much she'll charge for a BJ.

just_a_place · 2024-04-16T03:51:47+00:00

Usually when women screech "don't objectify meeee!!!!" what they really mean is "my ego is most important!"

The few times when women legitimately protest that they are being objectified what they really mean is that they are being dehumanized.

I too have always been baffled by this stupid verbiage of being "objectified," since literally we are all already objects. When people talk about objectification what they are truly talking about is dehumanization.\

Critical Thinking is not a common skill. That is why it is taught in school, and even then, the majority of dumb asses fail at it.

optimuscrymez · 2024-04-16T04:05:52+00:00

You didn't get the memo.

Most of this pretzel logic word salad shaming sound byte stuff = you are not the man I would prefer to be sexual. in any way. you have no balls to me.

women love being a good sexy ~~slut~~ lady for the right guy.

Women just have confused their lack of attraction for a particular man with a cache of wokespeak and garbled philosophical principles.

Title	Can we finally end the objectification nonsense? Can't we think critically?
Author	full_brick_package
Upvotes	0
Comments	414
Date	April 16, 2024 2:53 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1c55gjl/can_we_finally_end_the_objectification_nonsense/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/can-we-finally-end-the-objectification-nonsense.1515283 https://theredarchive.com/post/1515283

Comments