Boyfriend has porn images in photo album on his phone

[Thislife1]

I was using my boyfriend's phone yesterday and noticed that in between the photos he's taken of me and his 9yo son there are lots of porn images of women. I know that he looks at porn when I'm not there, and I'm ok with that, but I felt shocked seeing these images in his photos. They're not particularly graphic, mostly naked muscular women, but I can't understand why he has them in his photos. He's not secretive with his phone and both his son and I use it sometimes, which makes it seem worse! He also has quite a few 'friends' on Facebook who are female body builders/muscly. I'm not worried that he's chatting to them, but it does make me feel a bit weird that he needs to look at them. He's an incredible partner and Dad and I feel completely loved, respected and desired by him in every other way so I don't want to make a big issue out of it. But it just feels wrong. Should I say something?

People who feel sex and objectification are inherently inseparable often make poor lovers for this reason. Their sexuality does not exclude the reduction and use of another person for pleasure IMO.

"Only if you have tied your sexuality to objectification so tightly that sexuality cannot exist for you without objectification."

What does "objectification" mean in this context? If I see a woman and think she is beautiful am I objectifying her? If I believed her only worth or value is in her ability to please me aesthetically in some way then I could understand why this "objectification" is a bad thing, but that is not what is happening particularly.

Speaking for myself, I can find various physical aspects of a woman arousing in some way without needing to read her resume or know a thing about her. This is not a conscious decision as far as I am aware.

In terms of using someone else as a "wank-aid" does that include thinking about them.

Thinking people are attractive/being attracted to them is not the same as objectification.

Wanking whilst thinking about a person or an experience is not objectification either.

Taking a picture of a stranger or a friend and reducing them to an 'avatar' is objectification.

Objectification is when you reduce a person to a sexual commodity.

Some people think it is ok to reduce a person in this way, normally because their main worry is about infidelity either that they may be being unfaithful or their partner may think they are. That is not my personal concern with it.

I suppose it's a fine line. Like seeing a picture on Facebook which tickles your fancy. Then later in a quiet moment thinking back it whilst having a wank.

Or simply put making a deposit in the "wank bank" for a withdrawal later.

There is a fine line between attraction and objectification because objectification is founded on attraction. Many people slip over it no matter their beliefs but the beliefs are most important and also self-awareness.

Easy to think of it this way. If your sexual fantasy involves a reduction in/ignoring of another person's humanity/agency you are moving from attraction to objectification.

And of course what is actually attractive to a minority is the process of objectification itself.

But most people are not like that. All people are human and slip into behaviour that is problematic for other people but accepting that it is problematic is a better way than redefining it as fine IMO. I think objectification is problematic. Some other people don't whether they are being objectified or obectifying.

"Wanking whilst thinking about a person or an experience is not objectification either."

So if I was to fantasise about having a particular experience with Angelina Jolie then as it involves an experience I'd be the clear (sigh of relief).

Taking photos of FB 'friends' to screen shot and wank over makes me think he is disrespectful of women and I couldn't respect him for that. I have very strong views against porn though, but I can't quite work out either why you care about the phone but not the porn. Unless, as already pointed out, you aren't as comfortable with porn as you thought you were.

For the person who asked what women think about? I actually don't think about men, just whatever thought comes into my mind, but it is not a person. My mind just doesn't go there, I guess I have a crap imagination.

Funny...

Unless you've had that experience in a relationship with angelina jolie? No, didn't think so....

"but I ask again. Do women not think of men during masturbation."

I know one woman who said that she sometimes thinks of gay sex involving two men. Another said that she thought of blue skies and roaring waterfalls. In the latter case I'm afraid I genuinely couldn't tell whether she was being serious or jokingly playing up to some kind of stereotype or something.

What is maybe more productive in the quest for answers about objectification and masturbation is to ask people who object to objectification what they think of when they masturbate. It's not a male vs female thing.

What is maybe more productive in the quest for answers about objectification and masturbation is to ask people who object to objectification what they think of when they masturbate

I am not sure this would be productive at all. As I suspect the objectors are a minority. I was reading on the MN SEX board the other day various women talking about fantasies that included males. The term "wank bank" was used.

People sometimes think about other people while masturbating, that seems to be an aspect of human nature. Technology now means that visual imagery is even easier to get hold of. Again this I guess is evolution. As long as the person involved keeps their thoughts/actions private.

I know the feminist perspective has an "anti objectification" narrative heavily ingrained (and there is nothing wrong with that). However to a "person" with a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Personally I don't think private masturbation is a place to look to label as "objectification".

BTW Offred I used the term Avatar for a reason. I am a person. I expect to be treated as such. I object to being reduced to an object to aid someone's wank fantasy Its is not "you" being wanked over. It is an Avatar, which is an image loosly based on you. Here is the key point. The avatar may have looks "based on you", but all of its characteristics are of its creator. I know this is a fine line, but my point is it is not you. It is merely an automaton with a similarity with you.

Of course the objectors are a minority because we live in a society that is highly accepting/promoting of both porn and objectification. The reason I suggested it is because asking women what they think of/do won't tell you anything about whether objectification is a necessary part of masturbation.

The whole point is that you are taking a person and removing their personhood so that you can make them into a sexual commodity for your satisfaction. You may think this is fine but it doesn't stop it being objectification.

And you choose to do it. It is not necessary. It's the very essence of the process of objectification to dehumanise a person like that and commodity them. If you don't feel it's that bad of a problem because the other person will never know you've done it or because the other person has signed up to be objectified that's one thing but it doesn't change the essence of what you are doing.

Have you posted about this before OP only I remember a similar thread not long ago?

Does it not bother you that he is sexually turned on by a body type not like yours?

It's the very essence of the process of objectification to dehumanise a person like that and commodity them

Thats an interesting point I will have to think about that. Personally it would not bother me if a woman masturbated to an image of me. But I see what you are saying; my acceptance is bacause I have an intrinsic acceptance of objectification. Interesting!!!

"The whole point is that you are taking a person and removing their personhood so that you can make them into a sexual commodity for your satisfaction. You may think this is fine but it doesn't stop it being objectification."

If I have understood the rules correctly, I can think of something sexual I did with an ex-partner and that's OK because it happened with her, whereas if I think about doing that with Angelina then I am objectifying her, dehumanising her, reducing her to a sexual commodity, and all sorts of things that are designed to sound bad.

OK but what of it? As I said before, I can understand why this objectification is a bad thing if it is accompanied by the belief that the only value or importance of the other person is their attractiveness/sexiness, but that isn't necessarily happening. It is even less likely to be happening when it is someone you know in real-life as opposed to someone famous.

JAPAB - This site is what it is. I am sure you are aware of the "wisdom of the masses" concept. However that works if the masses are a cross section of the populace. MN is not a cross section of the populace. Therefore the responses will be naturally biased accordingly.

DrMorbius is right, but don't forget to factor in that many on here don't bother speaking up

It's not about having rules. It's simply a different ethical perspective.