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.

And trans people aren’t the only ones. People of size, people of color, people with disabilities, we all experience these forms of sexual hypervisibility and invisibility. We’ve all felt sexually invisible in a bar at the same time as we’ve been told that people like us are sexual freaks. We’ve all been simultaneously fetishized and sexually erased. We’ve all been ignored or denied equivalent sexual appreciation and agency while we dance on the bar next to our skinnier, whiter, cis-er, more able-bodied counterparts.

What's all this 'we've been'? This guy doesn't speak for me.

Horrible view in my opinion

But then what more can we expect from playboy? The epitome and serial spreader/encourager of objectification

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

If you are squinting a bit, it's probably because of the huge lightbulb that just lit up over my head! That is very interesting. Must read some Millet, stat.

Yes. To the point about the de-humanising of women. Wow. That has just made sense to me in light of my own experience. Delusional f*cking narcissists are not only trans. I need to read some Millet too.
Objectification is not love, it is seeing someone as an object to fill your desires; it is not even sexual desire which should be predicated on mutual attraction and consent. It is just seeing a person being there for however suits you. The power dynamic in society between men and women means that this is usually gender-based, to the detriment of women.

This person is struggling as, even if you discounted 'natural' attraction between the sexes,

a) women will not objectify a transwoman, as they do not socially have the power to do so, objectification is not a norm for them

b) men will not objectify a transwoman because the root of male privilege lies in power over biological women and there are plenty of them to be objectified (by those so inclined); and society facilitates the objectification of actual women because it is about maintaining the power differential between the sexes. Transwomen are not disempowered in this context, it is and would be an act.

And who the fuck things objectification is something to be desired any way? It is a form of abuse.

I could not read more than the first half of the article. It seemed to be saying that he wants to be objectified. That makes sense in the context of autogynaephilia. It makes no sense in terms of understanding sexual desire, which is a completely different thing. If it were simply about the desire for a sexual relationship, it would be a different thing, but it is not. It seems to be saying that being an object of (male) desire is a good thing and he is missing out because he is not seen that way.

Try telling that to any woman who has been de-humanised and objectified. It is abuse.

And de-humanising goes way beyond sex, although that is part of it, it goes to the point of women being paid less in the labour market, denied autonomy and freedoms that men take for granted, being expected to pick up the domestic daily grind because their time is worth less, all those things. Show me a man who thinks a woman is there to be fucked how he wishes, and I will bet my bottom dollar that this is part of a whole range of inequalities he perpetuates on that woman.

I had to laugh at 'men fancy me so much, they can't even look at me'. Believe me dear that's not the reason......

This reminds me so strongly of Paris Lees's article about going back to a hotel with four men (purposely not including link to avoid giving further clicks).

"One of them was inside me. One of them was working on me. One of them gave me something to shut me up. One of them gave me something to keep my hands busy... I was wanton, almost a caricature, a porno fantasy, a make-believe slut."

Because that's so an empowering for women. Just like being catcalled is.

I had to laugh at 'men fancy me so much, they can't even look at me'. Believe me dear that's not the reason......

Just showed the picture to my husband who confirms your opinion !

I wanted objectivisation so it must be good? I used to want cigarettes. That doesn't stop them being bad for me.

The comments are worth reading

I can't imagine why Playboy would want to publish a "get over objectification, it's great" article?

Ugh. This fetish is so male privileged and narcissistic and laughably far from actually being sexually objectified as a girl and woman.

Which is frightening, depressing, disgusting and relentless- at the very best you can hope for i.e. If you are 'lucky' enough to avoid physical male violence. And there's the effect on your self esteem and your pay packet. I could say more but I won't because some self regarding arsehole will probably find it a turn on.

Is it me or are they just confused about what 'objectification' means? I think they mean they want to be fancied, which is completely understandable.

Having said that isn't there a fine line between exhibitionism and wanting to be objectified? Thinking about the way the kardashians and co put themselves across as perfect but fake. It's hardly a trans thing alone.

But wanting to be objectified does not mean it is healthy and appropriate ThinkAboutIt, much less used to erode women's rights.

It was the third wave thing that one's female sexuality could be empowering and something to be owned. I think there is a differnence between owning one's sexuality and being comfortable with it, and exploitation.

The Paris Lees quote plays out male porn fantasies about women. It's telling that they say 'a make-believe' slut, because it is a creation both literally in their body and in terms of not relating at all to actual real-life female experiences. The term and meaning of 'slut' in modern day parlance relates to pornography and what is meant there. That is a creation by men for men. Paris Lees ought to have inserted 'sick' before 'fantasy' in that quote, because they are the type of fantasies that do damage to actual, real, born women, and are no way empowering, quite the opposite.

I need to wash my brain out now, it is very far from a mutually affirming, consensual relationship, which is surely what we want for our children. (What on earth must Paris Lees' parents think? 'Whatever floats your boat, dear?')

...much less should be used to...

Lots of typos in my post, sorry.

Paris Lees = Paris Sleaze if you say it differently. I don't think that's a coincidence. New names are thought about, long and hard (no pun intended).

Interesting article, particularly the naivety in instructing 'objectify me when I want it and stop when I don't'... women don't get to put limits around being objectified or any other form of sexual abuse, because it's about real powerlessness as opposed to sexy powerlessness in a consensual sexual experience. Only men get to experience that.

Also the massive self centredness involved in throwing all women and girls under the bus because he'd quite like to be treated in a sexually abusive way sometimes, when it suits him. It's borrowing the bits of perceived female experience that are attractive without any idea of the reality or context, and no interest in the experience or wellbeing of anyone else except the writer. It's horrifying that people so oblivious and so self interested are wielding so much political power.

There is also the tone of frustration and annoyance with women that they naturally have something the writer wants, feels entitled to and wants women to relinquish to them. Right now. There's perceived blame. And a sense of entitlement and chagrin that this entitlement is not being met.

Very immature emotional reasoning in many ways.

"Objectification" means "being made into an object" - to gloss that: having one's "subject status" - one's selfhood, autonomy, sense of self removed by the way other people treat you.

Being treated as less than fully human.

Why anyone would see this as a human desire, let alone a feminist ambition is just beyond me. But some people are a bit hard of thinking.

*Also the massive self centredness involved in throwing all women and girls under the bus because THE WRITER quite like to be treated in a sexually abusive way sometimes, when it suits THEM.

My apologies. I use the pronouns a person prefers and I always try hard to comment in a way that is not offensive as this is not about not understanding, or rejecting or discrimination, this is about polite and respectful debate of the issues at hand. It is however quite hard work to self check language at all times in the ways necessary to do this, and that sentence slipped past me.

That article is really sad.

Mate, no one fancies you.

Having had conversations with my trans friends and my friends who are drag queens they report the opposite to the point where it's a massive problem.

Trans bodies ARE objectified in a horrible way, think about lady boys.
It's not a politically correct term but it's the one that my best friend uses when talking about his own experience of 'tranny chasers', he gets unsolicited messages ALL THE TIME from strangers trying to hook up with him for sex and it drives him crazy.

It's different to the way women's bodies are objectified but I think that man does not want to objectified I think he wants to be validated. Sad.

"Objectification" doesn't mean "being an object of desire" FFS

Am thinking of a short campaign to send dictionaries to TRA writers, given that they are often so clearly mistaken in their choice of words (see also "literal violence")

No one deserves sex.

Literally no one.

Oh it's him whining about how he can't get laid AGAIN, he will whine about that for anyone who will pay him, he might even do it for free.

The comments are brilliant. Faith in humanity restored, as the liberal memes say.