"Objectification" - Not A Serious Concept

[Deleted]

It honestly boggles my mind that there are people in 2018 who don't see why reducing someone to their sexual characteristics can be a bad thing. I'm glad not everyone in the thread agrees with the OP.

[Konteil]

Meh there are lots of sex objects. Im sure most normal people have sport fucked a girl but thought fuck shes too crazy to date too bad shes so hot

lmao sportfuck. i love this and am sad now that i cant make that claim

[CritFromAfar]

It's often said that women are the gatekeepers to sex but men are the gatekeepers to commitment.

What is "objectification" (of women specifically)? It's nothing but a way to shame straight men because they find a woman sexy enough to fuck, but aren't necessarily interested in having a serious relationship with that same woman...

It is highly heterophobic first of all, I've never once in my life seen it used against gays objectifying men or lesbians objectifying women.


Women who complain about being objectified are pretty much the female equivalent of a male incel. Male incels think they're entitled to sex. Anti-objectification women think they're entitled to commitment. Male incels complain about the friend zone (i.e. a woman who wants to hang out with you but not romantically), anti-objectificators complain about what I like to call the fuck zone (being seen as a fuck buddy but not serious relationship or marriage material).

Now of course another thing both have in common is a total lack of self-reflection.

Men are not sex-crazed animals, they will respond with commitment IF your personality is good. So if you're only viewed as a "sex object" the problem is you, ladies.

"What is "objectification" (of women specifically)? It's nothing but a way to shame straight men because they find a woman sexy enough to fuck, but aren't necessarily interested in having a serious relationship with that same woman..."

Uh, no. That's a misconstruction of what objectification actually is, and it makes you sound bitter. To put it as simply as possible, "objectification" of a woman is basically just devaluing a woman. Straight men can rest assured that it's fine to not want to date, but if they turn around and say that their reason is "You're not good enough", then yes, that can be objectification.

"It is highly heterophobic first of all, I've never once in my life seen it used against gays objectifying men or lesbians objectifying women."

Arguable if you understand opposition to objectification as opposition to bad behavior rather than just outright opposition to heterosexuality. Is it heterophobic (underlining the word for emphasis to assert my point) if it's oppositional towards bad behavior in a relationship and not just the type of relationship as a whole?

It is more common for it to be used in discussion with heterosexuality. Do you have a lot of experience talking about objectification in regards to homosexuality? Because this could simply mean there isn't enough criteria to comment on objectification in regards to homosexuality.

"Women who complain about being objectified are pretty much the female equivalent of a male incel. Male incels think they're entitled to sex. Anti-objectification women think they're entitled to commitment. Male incels complain about the friend zone (i.e. a woman who wants to hang out with you but not romantically), anti-objectificators complain about what I like to call the fuck zone (being seen as a fuck buddy but not serious relationship or marriage material)."

Hm, maybe, but I don't think so.
Males that think they're entitled to sex tend to be rejected due to being overly bitter and them acting it out when someone doesn't automatically reciprocate how they feel. Men that take rejection in stride tend to be rejected less in the long run, because here's the kicker - they're not bitter, and they don't take the rejection out on someone else. Basically it boils down to maturity.

Understanding the basis of what objectification is means that opposing it isn't inherently a negative step to take. In that context if a woman is being unduly objectified, then it is more self-respecting for her to oppose it than to tolerate any person that could wish for her to be objectified.
If she's being objectified, it usually infers unjustified mistreatment. If the problem was off of her own merit, in that context it wouldn't be referred to as objectification, and in that context the solution would in fact mean she would be the one that would need to mature. So, based off of the base point of your OP - that objectificiation is a method of shaming - no, the concept of objectification doesn't exist just to shame straight men.

"Now of course another thing both have in common is a total lack of self-reflection.

Men are not sex-crazed animals, they will respond with commitment IF your personality is good. So if you're only viewed as a "sex object" the problem is you, ladies."

If someone recognizes poor behavior in someone else that hardly has to do with self-reflection, especially in regards to objectification, when objectification tends to happen due to poor behavior from someone else. Anti-objectification women aren't necessarily lacking self-reflection like you claim if they're recognizing poor behavior in someone else. While, yes, men that blame others because they can't recognize why they're being rejected is itself poor self-reflection.

I agree to the part about men not being sex-crazed animals, but other than that, what is considered a good personality and what men with differing personalities want in a woman, although generally following the same guidelines, tends to branch off and can vary greatly.

As for "the problem is you", circumstance tends to vary and this is way too generic of a claim to be wholly true or untrue.

TL;DR: You're equating lack of introspection to a desire for respect and fallaciously blaming women for why they can't get respect from immature men.

[Didly]

Somehow I feel a guy with 2300+ posts on MMO champ may not offer the best insights into the minds of women.

[infinitemeridian]

Another incel vs SJWs war thread.

It's like a competition to see who have the smallest number of braincells working.

Personally, I'm betting on the SJWs.

SJWs haven't been relevant for about 2 years now. Alt-right larpers, reactionaries, and incels are MUCH more cringy and annoying than their leftist counterparts.

[Drungan]

Ok enough internet for all of us today .... lets go outside and get some air.

[Deleted]

Somehow I feel a guy with 2300+ posts on MMO champ may not offer the best insights into the minds of women.

That's just crazy talk, where else do you propose I learn about them? Talking to actual women? Going outside? I was all kinds of on board with this topic until you came in with your fantasy nonsense.

[Deleted]

SJWs haven't been relevant for about 2 years now.

LOL! Their influence has never been worse.

[blankfaced]

There's already a word for that: Insane.

Seriously name me an example of one man who is sane, doesn't have a single digit IQ, and thinks women are not human beings but objects.

Go to a bar/club on a Friday night, they're full of them.

[Deleted]

Go to a bar/club on a Friday night, they're full of them.

Why are you slut shaming men? Bigot.

[Machismo]

LOL! Their influence has never been worse.

You do realize that you are a SJW, right?

[Deleted]

Thunderaan, I'm not sure why you keep doing this to yourself. Do you enjoy getting shot down? I don't think I've seen you make a salient point or win an argument, and I can't imagine that I should have or ever will.

And I really don't understand the name change. "Destroyer"? It seems the only thing you destroy is your own credibility. Over and over and over again.

Yay! Another content-free post.

I can't believe you think you're actually making a point with a post like this. There is 0 substance to it.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that you are a SJW, right?

What SJW position do I hold?

[Goldielocks]

Women objectify men all the time as well but “it’s fine” because they aren’t in a matriarchy. In other words, it’s okay to be a hypocrite as long as you’re a victim.

[Video Games]

Men are not sex-crazed animals, they will respond with commitment IF your personality is good. So if you're only viewed as a "sex object" the problem is you, ladies.

Heh
101010

[Machismo]

Yay! Another content-free post.

I can't believe you think you're actually making a point with a post like this. There is 0 substance to it.

- - - Updated - - -



What SJW position do I hold?

Well, my signature is an awesome place to start. Then again, there's this thread, as well. Let's continue, shall we?

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...eddling-is-BAD

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...e-Women-Or-Not

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...he-Young-Nazis

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...han-You-Think)

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ld-Perspective

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...that-is-Female

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...-you-feminists

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...bigotry-anyway

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ke-Cole-Phelps

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ed-by-an-incel

I think it's clear what you are. Also, that's just the first half of the last page of your started threads.

[Deleted]

I think it's clear what you are. Also, that's just the first half of the last page of your started threads.

None of those positions are SJW positions.

Maybe the most puzzling thing to me is... how the fuck did "If every cop was like Cole Phelps..." end up there anyway?

[Machismo]

None of those positions are SJW positions.

Oh, you are adorable for saying that. That's all you do on these threads, push for your own authoritarian version of social justice. Such a shame, you can't even understand what you are. Look at your fervent desire to push social change.

[HumbleDuck]

Go find a new forum, we already have an incel here.

[Biomega]

But remember, it only ever applies to men "objectifying" women.

Women never do that to men! Nope. When they see a random hot guy in the street, their inner monologue is all, "Oooh, I bet he has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. Mmm, yeah, the things I'd do to him and that brain." And they never, ever, ever do anything like comment on men's asses or how attractive they are. It's simply not done. No sir.

It does not only ever apply to men objectifying women. That's already a false premise.

It's more PROMINENT for that case, though, to be sure. In terms of sheer numbers, a lot of sexual objectification goes one particular way - but that doesn't mean ALL of it does. To criticize the concept on that basis is a fallacy; criticize its application instead.

Also, there is a big difference between "inner monologue", as you say, and actually translating that into expression and/or behavior. Nobody is immune to inappropriate thoughts. What counts is what you do with those thoughts - whether you contain them, ideally even reflecting on them trying to change your disposition; or whether you let them govern how you behave, and let them come out for all to see without filter. The key lies in critical thought. We're all sexual beings, with drives and impulses. But we're also rational beings, who have learned to keep those drives and impulses in check in ways that we have negotiated to be appropriate. If you completely negate either part, that's likely to lead to trouble.

Don't misunderstand me, though: I see nothing wrong with sexual desire. I see nothing wrong with sexual desire rooted in physical (rather than mental) attributes, either. What I find objectionable, though, is reducing ALL sexual desire to JUST physical attributes, and reducing individuals to JUST being a measuring stick for such desire. That's objectification, basically. You can praise a woman's boobs, or a man's butt - no inherent problem in that. But the moment you start seeing a woman as just her boobs, or a man as just his butt to the exclusion or near-exclusion of everything else, you're entering dangerous territory. It doesn't always have to lead to a catastrophe, but it's thinking along lines that you should be mindful of, and critically reflect on.

[Deleted]

Oh, you are adorable for saying that. That's all you do on these threads, push for your own authoritarian version of social justice. Such a shame, you can't even understand what you are. Look at your fervent desire to push social change.

I don't believe in social justice, just justice, there's a difference.

The only reason some of my views appear to be authoritarian (which still wouldn't mean I'm for social justice) is because I'm not your typical libertarian.

A libertarian system that no built-in mechanism to defend itself from subversion will inevitably collapse.

Ask yourself this, if you somehow managed to create a new country on some remote island and made a libertarian system, what exactly would stop it from being subverted in 200 years? That's almost the same as what happened to the US. Started with small government, few regulations, low taxes - that's not what it is today.

Using political liberty to take away liberty shouldn't be a legitimate right. In a proper society any politician who tries to implement social security would be thrown in jail for fraud and conspiracy to commit mass robbery. He would never get out.

If that sounds authoritarian so be it. The non-aggression principle should not be confused with pacifism. If people are plotting to rob you, you have a right to defend yourself.