Objectification

[Bushtuckrman]

But using the word sociopathic makes no sense. Objectifying sex for the purposes of fornication is apart of being human. Just as dolphins and many spieces of the animal kingdom have sex just for fornication with different partners. Its something that has evolved with us and suits no meaning of the word sociopathic.

[Kraenen]

But using the word sociopathic makes no sense. Objectifying sex for the purposes of fornication is apart of being human. Just as dolphins and many spieces of the animal kingdom have sex just for fornication with different partners. Its something that has evolved with us and suits no meaning of the word sociopathic.

I still don't see how the two are exclusive. Our innate/instinctual desires can make us objectify others and behave in sociopathic ways, but like BigZo said, you have to channel it and act in a decent manner that avoids or minimizes harm.

[Nathreim]

Everyone objectifies others in their lives its a part of being human.

Don't believe me think about the last time you went to the DMV.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Our instinct to procreate is not objectification. Most normal humans form strong bonds with their partner, known as pair bonding, when their mind and heart are open to the idea.

[Kurioxan]

The whole thing though, is that when you catcall at a random woman, you're typically reacting to her physical features (as a physical object), without any real regard for her feelings.

Its mostly the inconvenience and unwanted attention and circumstances.

This goes for men as well, it hardly is for women only, almost any dude will be able to tell you he has been objectified as well once or twice in his life.
Its just that humans are... interesting, the same people who will get upset for being cat called will at the same time spend their time posting shit to get "likes" on facebook, they crave the attention as most people do, its just from the wrong people.

consider this example: You are a dude, 2 girls are looking at you and biting their lower lips.
1 is gorgeous, the other is fat and has a beard.

the first one will be pleasant to you, the second will make you want to run away.
And due to evolutionary reasons, the negative emotion is far stronger, so you may not keep in mind the 20 girls who creamed their pants at your sight, but "that one fucking ugly bitch" will stay in your mind for weeks.
Pardon for the language, being used merely for comedy value.


Another thing that is a bit odd, is men and women who made a career from their looks, complain about being objectified, its senseless, the only reason they got fame and money is because of how they look, not their personality nor their feelings, ofc they are going to be "objectified", shit they sold themselves and then complain?

[Bushtuckrman]

This goes for men as well, it hardly is for women only, almost any dude will be able to tell you he has been objectified as well once or twice in his life.

I remember 15 years ago I was doing security at an entry/exit gate at a racecourse. The event finished and everybody started leaving out the gate, I saw two guys walking towards me one said something to the other guy who was close to my side, as they they walked by me the guy closest to me cupped my balls!!! I couldn't believe it but I had a good laugh over it.

[Leih]

What if you like being objectified?

Damn feminists, ruining all the fun for everyone else!

[Deleted]

Shitloads of advertising, movies, songs do that.

[nextormento]

Depends largely on what definitions and scope you choose to work with.

For skeptics, it's the epistemology question of other minds: every mind that is not my own -the subject-, is an object to be acted upon.

For solipsists there are no minds but one's own. The ontological question of other minds, and how to act upon them, is futile.

For Kant, women are commodities. They are the object of desire.
Amongst our inclinations there is one which is directed towards other human beings. They themselves, and not their work and services, are its Objects of enjoyment. It is true that man has no inclination to enjoy the flesh of another — except, perhaps, in the vengeance of war, and then it is hardly a desire — but none the less there does exist an inclination which we may call an appetite for enjoying another human being.
Kant also thought that the body and the self are fundamentally bound in what is a human being. This appetite can't happen towards the body only. It happens towards the individual as a whole. This appetite is the mechanism that objectifies a person: bypassing the moral humanity of the other mind.

For Dworkin, like it was for Kant, women are commodities. She, however, made a call to action for women to assert their humanness at every single moment. Implying that she, like Kant, thinks individuals are willingly setting aside their humanness when they have sex. She, like Kant was a woman-hater.

For MacKinnon, [in pronography] admiration of natural physical beauty becomes objectification. Harmless becomes harm. I'm not aware of any instance where this argument in fiery (becoming) is explained.

For Nussbaum, not all objectification is inherently negative: prostitution is ok, pornography is not. She is just on the verge of sex-negative positions.

For Ellen Willis, objectification itself is not a concern but how each individual goes about it. Fantasy, after all, is more flexible than reality, and women have learned, as a matter of survival, to be adept at shaping male fantasies to their own purposes. If feminists define pornography, per se, as the enemy, the result will be to make a lot of women ashamed of their sexual feelings and afraid to be honest about them. And the last thing women need is more sexual shame, guilt and hypocrisy-this time served up as feminism.


Failing to corner what definitions and moralities you espouse when using the term is often dishonest. Criticizing something because 'this is so objectifying' tries to impose a concept of morally corrupt over something that may be morally not bad when inspected with some other prism. Context-less criticism, in that sense, is an appeal to Kant and his byzantine views on sex.

[ItachiZaku]

The whole thing though, is that when you catcall at a random woman, you're typically reacting to her physical features (as a physical object), without any real regard for her feelings.

Chicks love attention and to feel wanted. I'm doing them a favor.

[Wildtree]

Which, don't get me wrong, is a shitty thing to do.

This, in all seriousness now, is way too narrow of a statement.
Truth is, that it depends entirely on a situation.

Cat calling..... can go from disrespectfully blunt, to respectful and charming.
It's the circumstances and the people's actions that determine the differences.

[grimsanta]

In certain situations, I never got the negative side of objectification honestly. If a hot woman is walking down the street and I turn and look at her ass when she walks by, I'm clearly objectifying her.

Am I treating her like an object and nothing else? Yes, I am. But those who find offense in this seem to forget that I do not know her at all. If I did, the idea of continuing to treat her like that is ridiculous. Also, those who would act on their objectification are idiots (cat callers, guys who wear tapout tshirts, etc...).

Seriously, me looking harms no one. Not a single person. So what's the problem?

[Tankendog]

When I cat call, I make sure not to shave my neck but the rest of my face, add on a few 50 extra pounds or drop all my muscle to be skinny fat, throw on my fedora, and shout out, "Might fine weather today, Ma Lady!"

[Wildtree]

In certain situations, I never got the negative side of objectification honestly. If a hot woman is walking down the street and I turn and look at her ass when she walks by, I'm clearly objectifying her.

Am I treating her like an object and nothing else? Yes, I am. But those who find offense in this seem to forget that I do not know her at all. If I did, the idea of continuing to treat her like that is ridiculous. Also, those who would act on their objectification are idiots (cat callers, guys who wear tapout tshirts, etc...).

Seriously, me looking harms no one. Not a single person. So what's the problem?

People that don't objectify will rarely, or likely never have things like the spontaneous eye contact flirt at a red light in traffic. Rarely exchange smiles with one another.....
If you cannot look, if that's negative, you better don't smile either. Cause that goes way further.

Gosh I am so glad reality outside the internet works so vastly different. lol

[Graeham]

It's all very subjective. I've been made to feel very uncomfortable by unwanted attention. Yet in other cases I've been made to feel like the luckiest guy in the world. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm biased - and I expect most other people are as well. If a very hot man or woman expresses their interest in someone then chances are they'll be seen as 'flirty' whilst if a visually unappealing man or woman does it they'll be brushed off as 'creepy'.

[THE Bigzoman]

This, in all seriousness now, is way too narrow of a statement.
Truth is, that it depends entirely on a situation.

Cat calling..... can go from disrespectfully blunt, to respectful and charming.
It's the circumstances and the people's actions that determine the differences.

I get a cotton hill vibe from this.

[Wildtree]

I get a cotton hill vibe from this.

Use your brain...
objectifying, including cat calling, that stuff is rampant in bars and clubs for example.
One can be totally stupid about it, and will of course leave the club alone again.... One can be smart about it, and then leave the club scoring and getting laid that night.
It's all a matter of proper interaction.
Circumstances and action determine whether it's appropriate and what's appropriate.
At the end of the day, even with this action there's so much more than black and white mindset.

- - - Updated - - -

It's all very subjective. I've been made to feel very uncomfortable by unwanted attention. Yet in other cases I've been made to feel like the luckiest guy in the world. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm biased - and I expect most other people are as well. If a very hot man or woman expresses their interest in someone then chances are they'll be seen as 'flirty' whilst if a visually unappealing man or woman does it they'll be brushed off as 'creepy'.

and that too.... yes.

[Independent voter]

The women in porn are virtual objects who are just used and are objectified.

If you hire a prostitute it's much hard to objectify her since she has a name, a cat, maybe a kid, she might play chess or Call of Duty, etc.

A neat experiment would be to show someone porn girl pictures and then to have the real woman appear, clothed of course. And to see how the men relate to her. I bet the difference in how they relate is night and day.

Some guys can even objectify human females who are right in front of them from what I understand though I've personally never seen this done.

[Galluccio]

The whole thing though, is that when you catcall at a random woman, you're typically reacting to her physical features (as a physical object), without any real regard for her feelings.

When I was in Italy, Rome in the Ghetto parts of the town my friends would often get cat calls from women. And, there weren't prostitutes either. It must just be in the US where only men give women "catcalls."

[Canpinter]

women get objectified as trophies men get objectified as appliances