Talk

Advanced search

objectification!

(131 Posts)
dadof2ofthem Thu 23-Jun-11 23:05:40

ok, this is a serious question
i was talking to a female friend of mine recently, she's educated and emancipated etc, i said "i dont get the 'objectification' argument, i've never once been aroused by an object"

she laughed and told me "it's object as apposed to subject " "ahhhh" i said as though it had just dawned on me what she ment.

if your objective your inpartial, well thats my understanding anyway, and subjective meants your subject to some other force , influencing your opinion.

maybe one of you can fill the gaps for me ?

giyadas Thu 23-Jun-11 23:12:26

there's a good explanation at feminism 101

HerBeX Thu 23-Jun-11 23:24:53

I always understood it as turning women into objects as opposed to full human beings.

Objects to fuck.

Is that too simplistic?

DontCallMePeanut Fri 24-Jun-11 07:34:43

What HerBeX said.

It takes the element of humanity away from women. Their emotions and thoughts don't matter, as long as you can fantasize about, or even CAN, fuck them.

Because, hell... That's all we're good for hmm

dadof2ofthem Fri 24-Jun-11 07:50:39

thanx giyadas that explanation is quite concise, seems 'objectification' does indeed come from 'object'in the phsyical sense.

so, it's simpler than i was thinking.

but i would say , if this is the case that most examples of objectification in our society are misplaced, i think only very simple people would think of female representaions in art/porn/the media are dehumanised to the status of objects.

GrimmaTheNome Fri 24-Jun-11 07:57:56

Some men when thinking with their 'lower brain' can be pretty simple people...'phoar, look at the tits on that, I could do her' type of response.

LilBB Fri 24-Jun-11 08:06:54

So you think porn does not objectify a woman?

dadof2ofthem Fri 24-Jun-11 08:26:07

i'm not sure it does LilBB
i saw a program the other day, cant remember what it was called, but it was about a group of girls training to be beauticians, they were spraying a model with a fake tan. the trainee and presenter were talking about the model and the tan like the model wasnt even in the room. i wondered how that must have made her feel. objectified?

at least with soft porn the focus is on the man or woman, and any dehumanizing of them would be detrimental to the porn and what porn attempts to do.

celadon Fri 24-Jun-11 08:52:16

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LilBB Fri 24-Jun-11 08:52:25

I think the modeling I industry just objectify women and men. They become like mannequins, there to simply sell a product.

However most porn is not 'soft' porn. It is becoming increasingly more violent and very rarely focuses on the needs, wants or enjoyment of the woman. It is a male driven and male controlled industry where women are pushed to do things they are not comfortable with. What is now considered mainstream is not what the majority of women enjoy sexually - anal sex, double penetration, violence, choking, ejaculation on to the woman's face. Doing these things to a woman purely for the sexual gratification of men is what porn does which dehumanizes women and turns them in to objects. In my opinion porn is like prostitution. The woman does not want to be there or do those things, she will allow someone to rape or abuse her for money/drugs/so she doesn't get beaten by her pimp or agent.

dittany Fri 24-Jun-11 08:58:12

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dadof2ofthem Fri 24-Jun-11 10:08:08

LilBB <anal sex, double penetration, violence, choking, ejaculation on to the woman's face. Doing these things to a woman purely for the sexual gratification of men is what porn does which dehumanizes women and turns them in to objects.>
i totaly agree with you, this sort of porn dehumanises people .
if a person undresses and pictures are taken which will excite another person, is this objectification? and if so, did touloose latrec objectify the women he painted?

dittany i dont know who catharine mackinnon is , but it's a punchy little statement, but lets face it, thats just semantics like when you say ' my father' you dont actually own your father.
celadon i'm not entirly sure of how i would define soft porn, but probobly as the absence of erections and penitrations .

TimeWasting Fri 24-Jun-11 10:16:18

A subject acts, an object is acted upon.
Women are expected to be passive.

Semantics is very important. Language shapes how we think.

dadof2ofthem Fri 24-Jun-11 10:19:22

< subject acts, an object is acted upon>
timewasting could you elaborate on that a little ?

LilBB Fri 24-Jun-11 10:30:07

Yes nude photos for sexual gratification objectify a person. Nude portraits objectify people. The nudes painted by artists at that time where quite often prostitutes. There are clearly varying levels of objectification but I don't think we can compare the works of a 19th century painter with the hardcore porn that is churned out today. Women as sexual objects is getting more and more prevalent, more and more acceptable. This is wrong and the more it continues the worse women will be subjected too.

I don't get what you are trying to achieve here though. Do you just want to argue with us? Are you trying to get us to think porn is acceptable?

TimeWasting Fri 24-Jun-11 10:31:44

The subject is the thing that we talk about, the object is the thing that the subject is acting upon.
So when we say that women are objectified, we are saying that they are made passive, that they are seen to be acted upon, rather than active themselves.

When women are objectified they are watched, they are touched, they are fucked, they are cut, they are painted, they are abused, they are mocked, they are controlled, they are patronised, they are questioned.

celadon Fri 24-Jun-11 10:39:09

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AliceWhirled Fri 24-Jun-11 10:42:59

For those wondering, the OP is someone who was banned for talking about his wanking regime on another thread where he also described his porn use. He has stated he is the same person on another thread.

EricNorthmansMistress Fri 24-Jun-11 10:46:13

if a person undresses and pictures are taken which will excite another person, is this objectification? and if so, did touloose latrec objectify the women he painted?

Yes and no.

If I were to take nudie photos of myself to give to someone for the purpose of tittilation, I wouldn't necessarily be objectifying myself. If the person seeing the pictures was involved with me, and would find them arousing because they were me, and made him think of sex with me, then he is not objectifying me. If I posted them anonymously online and a stranger wanked to them, he probably would be.

Appreciation of aesthetics is not anti-feminist. Making someone look beautiful and taking a photo or painting a picture for others to enjoy the aesthetic is a form of objectification, but not in a pernicious and damaging way. The dangerous aspect of the objectification of womens' bodies through porn etc is that people, both men and women, start to see womens' bodies as more important than themselves as a whole - that the body is separate to the person and can be purchased, or taken by someone for their own use without consideration of the woman as a person.

It's hard to explain, and I'm not doing it very well - but I think I might have made my point a little bit...

celadon Fri 24-Jun-11 11:08:38

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HerBeX Fri 24-Jun-11 11:10:08

"Cor look at that"

"Now that is nice"

I have heard women being referred to as "that" quite often. Not "her", but
"that".

The process of dehumanising women goes on all the time in normal life. Porn just underpins and encouraging it, making a vicious circle.

Why don't you go and do some reading about objectification OP? It's not the job of women to educate you, you are responsible for your own education. I recommend Pornland by Gail Dines.

dadof2ofthem Fri 24-Jun-11 11:29:24

thanx * timewasting* would you say being object is allways better than being subject? and do these two meanings of object have the same root in languege?

LilBB, celadon what am i trying to achive? i'm not looking for converts to porn thats for sure
i'm genuinly trying to understand this ,objectification that is.......... if you want me to cut to the chase, well ok, is there any situation where a man being excited by a picture of a woman is acceptable ? or at least not moraly reprehensable?

eric i liked your post, very interesting. i think your saying that to be 'object' isnt nessesarily a bad thing

herBeX refering to anyone as 'that' is just rude and blunt . and i googled it before posting, diddnt get very far , and no it isnt your job to educate me, and if you dont want to you dont have too.

HerBeX Fri 24-Jun-11 11:38:16

FFS no one has ever said that a man being excited of a picture of a woman is morally reprehensible.

That's one of those myths that porn users like to put around to justify their use of porn. The idea of anyone who is anti porn, being puritannical and uptight about sexual excitement.

dadof2ofthem Fri 24-Jun-11 11:42:17

herBeX you suprise me
so, if that is the case, where do you personaly draw the line ?

TrilllianAstra Fri 24-Jun-11 11:44:32

What Wasting said.

Men are expected to do things, they are active agents and they make things happen. Women have things happen to them.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now