Question for All: Is there a functional distinction between "objectification" and "lust"?

tubefox · 2014-09-24T14:37:51+00:00

"Objectification" is a ridiculous concept that is nothing more than an attempt by feminists to demonize normal human behavior. The definition I've heard most often is that "objectification" is when you view someone else only in terms of what you want from them. But by that definition, I objectify the clerk at McDonald's: I'm only talking to him because I want a hamburger.

roe_ · 2014-09-24T15:46:34+00:00

The Objectification Model of human sexuality is, IMO, hopelessly not-even-wrong and broken.

Here.

What is actually going on is not turing a "subject" into an "object" but turning an "agent" into an "experiencer" - which is different because you don't care about your lawn-mower but you care about something that experiences things.

When you look at fanciful descriptions of sex - this is exactly what's happening. "He was wild with passion" "She was swept away by the tide of lust" &etc. Agency is reduced and the Experiencing-self is granted all the power.

thro_way · 2014-09-24T14:57:24+00:00

Literally any human interaction can be framed as "objectification"; it's a non-falsifiable claim.

This is a really common feminist tactic. Take a word that has emotional power, redefine it into total ambiguity to the point where it's no longer deserving of it's original significance, and then classify your opponents with the etymology of the new definition but the connotations of the old one.

We see this with "objectification", "sexism", "patriarchy", "rape culture", etc.

[deleted] · 2014-09-24T18:07:13+00:00

Damn that is confusing. All I know is you gotta be a well-rounded person, both physically attractive AND have some (or a lot of) cool shit going for yourself. You can't just be one or the other. Men looking for women should look at women holistically, and women should be trying to attract men holistically.

Tell ya what, by the time I'm blowing a load into a girl's love-hole, I'm not thinking about all the talent she has, I'm 100% in the lusty objectification zone. Heterosexuality is work, you need to be able to become the lusty object of desire - know when to turn it on and know when to turn it off.

A big problem TRP has with women is women appear to give up and let their bodies go. You want commitment, hell, first let's see you commit to exercise. Marry that for life.

GridReXX · 2014-09-24T14:59:05+00:00

Everyone "objectifies" at some point or another.

However men seem to do it to the point where the 'objectee' feels uncomfortable, more so than the converse.

I wrote another comment about this previously.

M_rafay · 2014-09-24T22:44:51+00:00

Any BPer want to offer any counter-argument?

[deleted] · 2014-09-25T02:32:51+00:00

[permanently deleted]

mrsamsa · 2014-09-25T06:03:37+00:00

Is there a difference between Objectification and Lust?

Yes, that's why many of the examples you gave sound silly (e.g. if thinking our wives have 'hot asses' was objectification, a negative process, then objectification becomes a ridiculous concept).

If Objectification and Lust are separate things, are they still naturally co-occurring phenomena? How can we ascertain the difference between Objectification and Lust, if there is one?

Objectification and lust (or sexualisation) do overlap, in that some instances of lust are objectifying but the two aren't interchangeable. There have been a couple of PPD threads on this recently where some red pillers thought that avoiding objectification meant that you can't have one night stands or find women sexy for reasons independent of their personality...

Basically objectification is reducing a person to the state of an object. That is, all of the important aspects of being an agent are ignored or overlooked, and so there is an implicit acceptance that they no longer have rights, boundaries, thoughts, feelings, etc.

What this means in your everyday life is that if you think a girl is sexy and you check her out then that's normal. If you attempt to avert your eyes when you catch yourself staring, or she catches you, in order to avoid feeling awkward or just to avoid making her uncomfortable then you aren't treating her like an object. You don't care about the feelings of your TV or fireplace when you stare at it so if you were objectifying the woman then you should feel the same way.

In the context of some of your questions/examples:

A man viewing Playboy is thereby "objectifying" the models therein, because he is only interested in them (while viewing the magazine, at least) for their physical attributes.

I can't really find any arguments for Playboy being an example of objectification so I'm not sure exactly what the argument is supposed to be. Normally Playboy is criticised for its over-sexualisation of women which affects how women are viewed, and so I guess in a societal sense that could lead to issues of objectification but it wouldn't really apply to the individual case of a man looking at a naked woman in the magazine.

Is it possible to feel lust and simultaneously appreciate someone as a full human being and not a "mere sexual object"? That is, to avoid objectification, would our hypothetical Playboy reader have to contemporaneously, genuinely feel concern about the model's thoughts, feelings, political opinions, and upbringing?

No need to care about her feelings or background, just enjoy her nakedness with the understanding that she has willingly provided the images for your pleasure (or at least her compensation).

If you were reading a porno mag filled with the recently leaked celebrity images then that would be a good case for objectification as you would literally be condoning the breaking of the law in order to ignore their consent.

How about a man viewing his wife - if he catches himself checking out his wife's ass, says to himself simply "my wife has a hot ass!", is he objectifying in that moment if he does not immediately say "And I respect her deeper self and her knowledge of late 19th century British poetry."

No need to simultaneously "respect her" on a conscious level, just accept that she's a person and not an object. (Of course, if you don't actually respect her then it seems like a weird marriage).

Are women objectifying men if they go see a movie just because they think Johnny Depp is cute? Was Magic Mike "objectification"? Are both examples objectification but are not "bad" like male objectification of women because of (insert something about systematic oppression, The Male Gaze, and power dynamics)?

They can be a kind of objectification but yes, as you allude to, relevant scientific concepts (like systematic oppression) change the dynamics of the situation. The main point is that it's hard to fully objectify men in media because the market is so saturated with images and messages which reinforce the idea that men are complex persons who should be respected for being strong and weak, smart and dumb, brave and cowardly, etc. Basically, no matter what attributes a man has he is admired for them, and so when you have a movie that is pure sexualisation of a group of men then that's just another wonderful aspect of the multi-faceted man.

Women on the other hand aren't afforded this same right, and so we end up just getting bombarded with women as sexual objects and nothing else.

Do gay men objectify each other? Is this less bad than heterosexual objectification? How about gay women?

I don't think being gay makes someone immune from things like objectification but the same societal issues with gender differences in objectification would apply.

Do animals objectify each other? When a female peacock chooses to mate with the male peacock with the largest feathers, is she objectifying those feathers?

Animals aren't capable of comprehending the concept of "agent" and things like "consent". It's the same reason it makes no sense to ask if a lion attacking a gazelle is immoral - it can't be since no agents are involved.

Do we objectify athletes, with the objectification around their performance rather than their sexual qualities? Is it possibly to "objectify" someone for their mind?

It's possible to objectify them in this way when we forget that they're people too, like when paparazzi force their way into their lives and take away their privacy because they're "just taking photos".

But generally people recognise that athletes are people who are good at sporty things but are still people who get tired sometimes and who won't always want to be disturbed or have things demanded of them.

My basic question is this: in any given instance of sincere, involuntary lust, is there a way to determine if the lust-er is objectifying the lust-ee?

If they are treating them as an object then there's a good chance that objectification is going on.

If a stranger in a movie theater around you says "Scarlett Johannson has a hot ass in this movie!" can you know whether he has objectified Scarlett without having access to his mind to ascertain any other simultaneous thoughts about Scarlett and/or his previous opinions on Scarlett's humanitarian work?

I don't think there is any way of knowing based on that single instance and without asking further questions or observing more behavior from them.

give_me_shinies · 2014-09-26T14:26:13+00:00

I think "sexual objectification" is an over-hyped concept. The girls in Playboy are paid to be sexually appealing, to be gawked at by men "reading" the magazine, that's their job. The same way a McDonald's employee is paid to make burgers, or an athlete is paid to play a particular sport. I don't think that's objectification, neither is checking out your wife's ass or any of the other scenarios listed.

However, I'd argue that stuff like this and this, just as examples, are objectification and I personally find it disturbing.

[deleted] · 2014-09-25T04:35:21+00:00

Yes.
Not all the time. Right now in a different thread another RPer is comparing women to cars. I don't believe him to be consumed by lust at the moment.
The difference is that waves of physical lust are meant to wash over you for a time. You shouldn't continue thinking about people as sexual objects. It should stop once the feeling passes.

garybuseysawakening · 2014-09-24T18:54:21+00:00

Objectification is the conscious decision to ignore a person's autonomy when it has been presented to you. Feminists, however, love to claim it extends even as far as men liking scantily clad women in their fictional work.

Title	Question for All: Is there a functional distinction between "objectification" and "lust"?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	11
Comments	55
Date	September 24, 2014 2:28 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2hbz47/question_for_all_is_there_a_functional/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/question-for-all-is-there-a-functional-distinction.284778 https://theredarchive.com/post/284778

Comments