Feminists need to stop saying objectification is bad...

[QuentinSummers]

Rant coming up! About this article www.playboy.com/articles/trans-objectification

It's trans related so please click away if you don't want to discuss a trans take on feminism.

Apparently The message that being considered as a “sex-having and desiring” (how the author defines objectification) individual is universally negative is mostly based in the experiences of white, cis, thin, able-bodied people who have regular, and often too much, experience with sexual objectification.

I really don't think street harassment and cat calling are confined to "white, cis, thin, able bodied people".

In a feminist future, we stop saying that all objectification is categorically bad. In a feminist future, all trans people, people of size, people of color, and people with different abilities have the chance to get the types (if any) of objectification that we crave.
Feminism has bigger fish to fry than trying to force people to objectify trans people when they don't want to. I also hugely object to lumping "people of colour", "people of size" and "people of different abilities" into a huge amorphous blob that the author considers unattractive. Leave other "people's" experiences out of it.
But wait.....people do want to objectify this trans person but they are in denial People are often so scared of their desire for me that they avert their eyes. They can’t so much as look at me without fearing that their “deviant” desire for me will be revealed to the world (is it just me or is this a bit rapey, along the lines of "you know you want it?)

This whole article seems to me to epitomize AGP as the author is basically complaining no-one fancies them as much as they fancy themselves. They even say Trans people never get the sexual attention that we deserve. We are so hot, so sexy, so beautiful. We are skilled, compassionate, ferocious lovers.

I can't believe anyone pays for this kind of bilge. Imagine sitting in a lecture with this person going on about why, if objectification is so bad, why do they want it? QED, feminists have got it all wrong, objectification is good.

It's funny how similar it is to the post-feminist spiel ("Being a feminist now means that we are OK to say we want to look lovely and get male attention,) that was thrown at women in the early 90s.

I think it's amazing how this particular discourse has a cycle and comes attached to a seeming "time to update feminism" discourse.

It's also interesting in that it lays bare the desire - which is to be the object of male desire - at the root of the politics. It's not really the same as a revolutionary or feminist political desire, is it? So it makes quite explicit the differences between the objectives of this particular political trajectory and a feminist trajectory.

So the author thinks that "objectification" means "considering someone desirable for the purpose of sexual congress"?

sadly you can't argue with stupid.

If I may quote Inigo Montoya 'you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'

I had to stop reading it halfway through. What a creep.

Same old, same old, though.

Man can't get the sex he feels entitled to. He objectifies women all his life, and can't understand why, when he identifies as one, he can't get a shag.

I don't know if he's gay or straight. But either way, he has eliminated 99% of his potential dating pool. Straight women want a straight man, lesbians want a woman, Straight men want a woman and gay men aren't interested in a man who thinks he's a woman.

The other 1% probably aren't interested in a delusion narcissist.

But yeah, he's just like a woman.

Ugh, that's disgusting!

The person who wrote this should take an feminism 101 course and learn that objectification is not the same as sexual attraction, and that black women in particular are treated as objects because of their sex AND their race, and while I'm' white, I'm going to guess that, like other actual women, they don't want to be objectified, because we all know what it means to be treated as object.

But of course, the autogynephiles don't get much out of their fetish if everyone treats them with the respect due a human being while they are wearing womanface.

Trans people never get the sexual attention that we deserve. We are so hot, so sexy, so beautiful. We are skilled, compassionate, ferocious lovers.

Uh, no dude. There's nothing hot or sexy about hating your own body, and nothing beautiful about the scars you got as result of hating your own body. (And if you didn't get surgery, there's nothing sexy about being delusional, either). And you would get plenty sexual attention if you yourself were attracted to and would give sexual attention to your own people instead of molesting lesbians.
Compassionate doesn't mean what you think it means. Compassion is the thing you so severely lack, which is why you tell feminists to shut up and prioritize males.

Trans people never get the sexual attention that we deserve.

What does that even mean?!

What possible behaviour could result in being deserved sex?

If I may quote Inigo Montoya 'you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'

Perfect quote. This dude uses a lot of words he doesn't know the meaning of.

He also doesn't seem to realize that he reveals his own lies by complaining that trans don't get enough sex despite being soooo great in bed - why the fuck doesn't he fuck other trans, then?

There's probably, at this point, fewer lesbians than trans identified people.
Strangely, I have never heard this kind of complaint from lesbians.

The person who wrote this should take an feminism 101 course
They did study feminism at university, but rejected it because as they wanted to be objectified, that meant objectification is good.
So unfair. Not even the sight of their long legs in heels can entice a man to ogle them. And everyone knows that's like, the law.

They did study feminism at university, but rejected it because as they wanted to be objectified, that meant objectification is good.

Doesn't seem to have gotten the difference between attraction and objectification, though. How does he think radfem lesbians have sex?

... or is he aware that all those women he lists could have men being sexually attracted to them, but thinks they should prefer being objectified?

Well, with someone so deluded, that's certainly not impossible.

How much male privilege would you have to have to get paid for meaningless waffle like that which as VestalVirgin notes, wouldn't even pass Feminism101?

If he thinks trans people are so hot, why doesn't he focus on trans people instead of moaning that straight men don't objectify him? He also has missed the point that objectification means the subject doing the objectifying doesn't care what you want.

It's hard to actually live like a woman without any privilege at all isn't it?
Because what that person is saying is just that.
I used to rule the roost and get whatever I wanted.
I am now a (trans)woman and I am shocked that suddenly, just like any other woman, I can't rule the roost anymore.

Welcome to the real world.

There is a peculiar kind of sick illumination to this man's thinking.

He just wants sex. And he is inhabiting his fantasy woman. The woman he wants to be. Because it turns him on.

"We are so hot, so sexy, so beautiful. We are skilled, compassionate, ferocious lovers."

He is only thinking about how he will feel, when he has sex, as the woman of his own pornographic dreams.

The mind of an autogynephile is so very divorced from reality it's almost painful. What with that and the narcissism, the alienation is utterly profound.

Clearly misunderstands the basic level of human attraction - objectification is the least of it.
Refreshing to read the comments under the article at least.

They are not male or female apparently. They are all the gender.
www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a10302785/jacob-tobia-i-am-beautiful/

I can't work out if they only want attention from straight men or wtf is going on. Bizarre

Read most of the article

'I want, i want, i want'

Well they are bang out of luck arent they'

Always, always, always these types simultaneously bemoan the fact that nobody wants to fuck them whilst hollering that they are so hawt that everybody wants to fuck them.

The delusional self aggrandising narcissism is writ large in every sentance.

Does this mean that very thick misogynistic men think that, when they are asked to stop objectifying women, that means to stop finding women attractive or wanting to have sex with them?

They may consider themselves "hot" and "beautiful" but as those of us who were born female know only too well, a hint of 5 o clock shadow is not usually something a man is looking for when he objectifies a woman! The money & hours we women spend on hair removal are testament to this.

I think this person is a piss taker or maybe they are truly trying to push the boundaries. They seem to be wishing for straight male attention, as the short skirts and high heels are traditionally things that would be targeted at men, but by presenting themselves as somewhere between male and female, they are not going to be attractive (or "objectified" as they prefer) to many people male, female, straight or gay.

This seems to be the big problem, they want people to look past their own preference for a manly man, a feminine woman etc . Most men who will want a hyper-sexualised woman in a short skirt, high heels and 5 hours worth of make-up generally don't want stubble-burn the next morning or a lady-penis lurking beneath that mini skirt. That's not people being TERFs or committing a hate crime, it's biological desire in action.

If they want lesbians to find them attractive, their best bet is to find a 'lesbian' who was born male and will understand why they still have their bits and bobs. But strangely no, they don't seem to fancy each other - why could that be?!

I must admit, as I've got older I do miss the admiring glances that I used to get, but that's not "objectification" in my mind, it was generally respectful and often mutual.

Surely they should learn basic English before writing articles? The whole point of objectification is that is removes all personal qualities like having, wanting and enjoying sex and sexual attention to reduce an individual to nothing more than their body as a sexual object.

"Does this mean that very thick misogynistic men think that, when they are asked to stop objectifying women, that means to stop finding women attractive or wanting to have sex with them?"

I think it is precisely this. I'm re-reading Millett at the moment, and the take down of Henry Miller and Norman Mailer in chapter one. It is quite clear that misogynistic men want to have sex with women as objects, because part of their sexual fetish is the complete denial of the humanity of the person attached to the body whose orifices they want to penetrate. So if you were to "de-objectify" women, this sort of man would be left with no sexual desire at all, because their sexual desire is exclusively directed towards woman-shaped objects, not towards women as human beings.

Just gross. Only a man who hasn't spent his whole life trying to avoid unwanted male gaze could think something as ridiculous as this.

And FWIW, I am brown, and pregnant planet sized and hobbling due to round ligament pain and I still caught some leery men checking me out today. I tugged at the bottom of my skirt. It didn't make me feel hot or sexy or desired, it made me feel uncomfortable.

So if you were to "de-objectify" women, this sort of man would be left with no sexual desire at all, because their sexual desire is exclusively directed towards woman-shaped objects, not towards women as human beings.

Yeah. And the interesting thing is that they believe all men are like this.

To illustrate what I mean, this article about a fantasy creature (invented by men, it seems) is rather interesting:

grimm.wikia.com/wiki/Folterseele

This creature has a "defense mechanism" that is triggered when men are "sexually attracted" to her, and is also "often targeted for rape" because of her "beauty" because men cannot "control themselves".

The men who came up with this creature, as well as the man who wrote the article, and the commenters, seem unable to differentiate between being sexually attracted to a woman and wanting to rape her. Which implies they not only see women as objects but also think this is the norm.

It is somewhat disturbing to read the description, but also gives interesting insights in how some men (and women, I guess) think.

That's also true - it is very clear that what turns Miller and Mailer on, for instance, is rape, not consensual sex.

WingedSoul - . Round ligament pain is the pits, and to have men leching at you as well .

What the fuck did I just read?